Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to today’s business, I wish to make a short statement. I have received letters from a number of hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, requesting that I give precedence to a matter as an issue of privilege. The matter is the Prime Minister’s statements to the House regarding gatherings held at Downing Street and Whitehall during lockdown. The procedure for dealing with such a request is set out in “Erskine May” at paragraph 15.32.
I want to be clear about my role. First, as Members will appreciate, it is not for me to police the ministerial code. I have no jurisdiction over the ministerial code, even though a lot of people seem to think that I have. That is not the case. Secondly, it is not for me to determine whether or not the Prime Minister has committed a contempt. My role is to decide whether there is an arguable case to be examined.
Having considered the issue, and having taken advice from the Clerks of the House, I have decided that this is a matter that I should allow the precedence accorded to issues of privilege. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras may table a motion for debate on Thursday. Scheduling the debate for Thursday will, I hope, give Members an opportunity to consider the motion and their response to it. The motion will appear on Thursday’s Order Paper, to be taken after any urgent questions or statements—hopefully, there will not be any. I hope that this is helpful to the House.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Smoke-free 2030 Target

Charles Walker: What steps his Department is taking to meet its target of England being smoke-free by 2030.

Sajid Javid: I know that my hon. Friend has long been a passionate advocate for a smoke-free England, and I read his recent Westminster Hall debate with interest. Some 64,000 deaths a year are attributed to smoking and it is one of the greatest drivers of health disparities in our country. I am personally determined that we should do everything we can to reach the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free 2030. That is why, in January, I asked Javed Khan to lead an independent review into tobacco control. Once that review is complete, the Government will set out their next steps.

Charles Walker: To get to a smoke-free 2030, for every 100 people smoking today we need to reduce that figure by eight, because “smoke-free” actually means 5% or less of the adult population smoking. Can I ask the Secretary of State to ruthlessly target the barriers that stop people stubbing out their last cigarette? We need to get the numbers of smokers down; otherwise, 2030 will be an ambition that is not achieved.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The smoking rate is currently 13.5%, which is the lowest on record. However, smoking remains the largest driver of health disparities in our country. The new tobacco control plan, which will be informed by the new independent review, will be looking to do exactly what my hon. Friend says.

Barry Sheerman: As one of the original campaigners for a ban on smoking in public places, I fully support what has just been suggested, but can I go further and beg the Secretary of State to come up very soon with a plan so that every child, every person and every family in this country can breathe clean, fresh air away from the pollution coming from diesel vehicles and other sources?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman has long been a campaigner on this issue and I commend him for that. He is right to continue pushing. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the independent review because it is just that, a review fully independent of Government. However, once it is complete—I hope to publish it in May—we can set out our plans.

Health and Care Integration

Ben Bradley: What steps he is taking to help ensure that health and care services are well integrated.

Andrew Lewer: What steps he is taking to help ensure that health and care services are well integrated.

Sajid Javid: The past few years have shown that we are strongest when we work together. Earlier this year we published the integration White Paper, drawing on our experience of the pandemic to develop a plan that will bring together the NHS and local government to deliver jointly for local communities. We have also created integrated care partnerships, such as the programmes in mid-Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, through which we are already showing how we can bring together health and local social care services.

Ben Bradley: As covid regulations come to an end, I understand that the discharge fund is also set to end. This could leave local government vulnerable where there are no formal procedures locally to pass funding from the NHS to local government services and local authorities. Particularly as we seek to reduce hospital backlogs, it is vital that we get people out of hospital and into appropriate care settings. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, where local authorities seek to tackle such backlogs, they will have access to appropriate funding?

Sajid Javid: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course, we are already putting in record funding for local authorities and the NHS to deal with backlogs. I believe the plan we set out earlier this month for the integration of NHS and local authority care services will make a real difference.

Andrew Lewer: I thank the Secretary of State for referring to the work in Northamptonshire to integrate health and social care. Can he assure me that the central role of local government in ensuring that health and social care services work together to make the most efficient use of local resources will continue? And will he give me a clear guarantee that adult social care will not be taken over by the NHS?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The integration White Paper signals our intention to go further and faster on health and care integration, building on the work already being done by the NHS, adult social care and local government to deliver services jointly. The plan will lead to better collaboration, and we want to make sure that overall responsibility is still shared between local authorities and the NHS.

Valerie Vaz: The Secretary of State will know that Walsall Manor has been merged with the Royal Wolverhampton—they share a chief executive and chairman—without consultation with local people. How on earth can integration take place when Walsall Manor does not have a full-time chief executive to ensure that it happens? Will the Secretary of State please ensure that Walsall Manor gets its own chief executive?

Sajid Javid: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point, but it is about what works on the ground. My understanding is that what is happening in her area is about a shared management team that shares best practice and tries to address challenges together, rather than any kind of formal merger.

Alex Norris: Across the country, tens of thousands of people sitting in hospital are medically fit to go home but cannot do so due to a lack of social care. The Health and Care Bill should have addressed that, but it does not. Rather than making us wait for more legislation, will the Secretary of State at least concede that local health leaders, be they in clinical commissioning groups or in integrated care systems in shadow form, should be driving this locally as a matter of urgency?

Sajid Javid: That is exactly what the new integrated care systems are all about. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman sat on the Health and Care Public Bill Committee, which made it a reality.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Jake Berry. [Laughter.] Sorry, Wes Streeting.

Wes Streeting: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have clearly had a happy Easter.
The fact is that the Government’s failure to fix the social care crisis is causing huge pressures on the NHS. As of last week, more than 20,000 patients were fit to leave hospital but could not be discharged because the care was not available, which means that 22,000 patients each month are waiting more than 12 hours in A&E and that heart attack and stroke victims have to wait more than an hour for an ambulance. We are used to hearing about winter crises, but is it not the case that, after more than a decade of underinvestment in the NHS, a failure to fix social care and the absence of a plan even to address the staffing challenge in the NHS and social care, we have not just a winter crisis but a permanent crisis in the NHS?

Sajid Javid: That is not the case at all. The hon. Gentleman knows, although he pretends not to, that the NHS and social care are facing unprecedented pressure  because of the pandemic. He will know that as a result of the pandemic, both in NHS settings and in adult social care there has been a necessity for infection and protection controls. He will know that, sadly, staff absences are higher than they have been in normal times. But the NHS is stepping forward, with its colleagues in adult social care, to provide whatever support it can bring, especially with the record funding the Government are providing, both to the NHS and to adult social care.

Jake Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and I have been working with east Lancashire local authorities and our GP services to see whether we can increase the number of face-to-face GP appointments. Will the Secretary of State say what action he and the Government are taking to ensure that people in east Lancashire can see their general practitioner face to face?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. We have heard time and time again in this Chamber about the pressures our constituents are facing in order to get that kind of face-to-face access to their GPs. We all know why the situation was particularly bad at the height of the pandemic, but we expect it to improve rapidly. The percentage of people being seen face to face is increasing substantially, in large part because of the measures the Government have taken, including the £250 million access fund that was announced a few months ago.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson, Martyn Day.

Martyn Day: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Integration and service improvement cannot be delivered without sufficient staff, and the only way to attract people to a career in social care is by valuing them. In Scotland, they are already paid better than those in England and Wales, and through the national care service the Scottish Government will improve terms and conditions for care workers, through the introduction of national pay bargaining. Have the UK Government considered following the Scottish Government’s approach and commitments?

Sajid Javid: Integration between the NHS and social care requires the right level and quality of workforce, both in the NHS and in adult social care. In the NHS in England, we have more doctors and nurses—more people working than ever before. In adult social care, we are recruiting at high levels, not least because of the huge recruitment campaign we ran with the sector, and some of the other changes we made, including the £400 million- plus of retention funding over the winter period. In addition, the support for the workforce more generally is making a real difference.

Peter Bone: In north Northamptonshire, integration is getting on very well, with Councillor Helen Harrison heading the adult social services. However, going back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) said, there is the worry that because the NHS is so big it will overwhelm local government. I have told the Secretary  of State that they do not want to mess with Helen Harrison, but can he ensure that there is a mechanism for reviewing that?

Sajid Javid: I know that my hon. Friend knows Helen Harrison extremely well, but he is right to talk about the importance of the NHS and the adult social care sector and local authorities working together. We must make sure that it is a true partnership, where one does not overwhelm the other and they work together towards their shared interests.

Helen Morgan: One key cause of the urgent care crisis in Shropshire, in the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, is the inability to discharge patients who are medically fit to go home into social care in the community. Shropshire Council’s resource challenges in that area are well known. Will the Secretary of State commit to putting extra resource into social care in Shropshire so that the medically fit can be discharged into the community when they are ready?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue, and the whole House heard just before the recess the results of the independent work done by Donna Ockenden. The hon. Lady is right to talk about that and the pressure that has been faced locally. I understand that she has already reached out to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and that he will be meeting her to discuss just that.

NHS Dentistry Backlog

Tom Hunt: What steps his Department is taking to tackle the backlog in NHS dentistry appointments.

Maria Caulfield: The dental activity threshold has recently been raised to 95% of usual activity. That is another quarter-on-quarter increase to get us towards 100% of pre-pandemic activity. I fully recognise, though, that access to NHS dentistry before the pandemic was patchy and that the crux of the problem is the current NHS dental contract, so work is under way to reform that contract. As negotiations have started, I am limited in what further I can say, but I will update the House as soon as possible.

Tom Hunt: A number of my constituents are finding it impossible to access NHS dental care. They include Alison, one of my constituents who worked as a midwife in Ipswich Hospital for 40 years. Some of them have contacted 40 different practices and have not got anywhere. My understanding is that there has been a 30% drop in the number of dentists taking on NHS work in Suffolk. Will the Minister explain what local work is going on between the Department and the local NHS bodies to try to ensure that this issue is addressed?

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is quite right in his question and is campaigning hard to increase dental activity in his constituency. One of the key pieces of work is being done through Health Education England, which set out a range of recommendations in its “Advancing Dental Care” review. That will do a number of things,  such as increase the skill mix and scope of practitioners across dental teams, and we may well require legislation to bring some of that work forward. Health Education England is also introducing more flexible routes into dental training and doing some workforce modelling to identify the parts of the country with the biggest gaps in provision, so that we can establish centres of dental development in those areas. I will look at Ipswich in particular.

Emma Hardy: My constituent contacted me to tell me that when she broke her canine and went to contact her NHS dentist, she found she had been kicked off the list and was facing a bill of £4,000, which she simply does not have, to have the work done privately. Will the Minister speak to some of the dental practices about the possibility of relaxing their rules on kicking people off their dental lists, especially as covid has meant that patients might have had legitimate reasons for missing appointments?

Maria Caulfield: I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience. There is not actually a list system for dentists as there is for GPs, so patients can see any dentist when they have a dental issue. With that said, we have asked dental practices to update their availability for NHS patients on the website. This morning, I looked at the website to see what availability there was throughout the country and saw that many dentists still have not updated their availability, so I will ask officials—particularly in her constituency—to update the lists so that patients can access NHS dentistry more easily.

Peter Bottomley: I join the Minister in thanking dentists and their associates for getting so much of the service back. Does she agree that in places such as the Arun parts of my constituency, where people cannot find a dentist and have not been able to for two or three years, there must be a way for people to get on a dentist’s list and get treated, and for dentists to be properly rewarded? Dentists and patients would be grateful for a change in the contract.

Maria Caulfield: The Father of the House is quite right that the crux of the problem is that there is a shortage throughout the country not of dentists but of dentists taking on NHS work. The contract is the nub of the problem, which is why work is under way to reform it. We will shortly announce some short-term changes and some longer-term reforms, which will hopefully help my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Jim Shannon: Bearing in mind that dentists are now determined to turn their practices wholly private as they cannot make ends meet with NHS prices, will the Minister pledge to review NHS payments to stop the haemorrhaging of NHS dentistry provision?

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the units of dental activity payments are a perverse disincentive. Sometimes, when someone needs more extensive work, their dentist is paid the same as they would be for, say, one or two simple fillings. That is the nub of the problem and we are currently in negotiations on the matter.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend the Minister is right to talk about the contracts with dentists, but should she not also look at how dentistry is structured and the regional nature of the contracting? It sits outside our clinical commissioning groups, which reduces co-ordination and accountability in respect of something that is central to our health. Should this not change?

Maria Caulfield: My right hon. Friend is right. Health Education England is addressing the overall system of where dentists are training and where the gaps in provision are filled in its “Advancing Dental Care” review. It is also working with commissioners at a local level to develop more opportunities in those places that we term dental deserts, where there is currently a lack of provision.

Feryal Clark: NHS dentistry is in crisis. Patients are stuck with either a never-ending wait for an NHS appointment or footing the bill for going private, which is simply not an option for most families suffering rising bills and taxes. With a third of the population experiencing untreated tooth decay, when will this Government, who have had 12 years to do so, finally come up with some practical solutions that put patients’ needs first, rather than the half-baked, unworkable ideas we have heard to date?

Maria Caulfield: I am sorry to the hear that tone from the hon. Lady. We are working under Labour’s 2006 dental contract, and she may have missed that dentists were unable to offer any routine care during the pandemic over the last two years, which we have slowly worked up to 95% of usual activity. She may want to play politics with this issue, but perhaps she should speak to her Labour colleagues who run the NHS in Wales, where 6% of dental posts were lost last year. She should get her own side in order before lecturing this side of the House.

Steve Brine: With the exception of the previous question, I do not think that anybody on either side of the House who has raised this issue is playing politics, because a pattern is emerging of a backlog and problems in accessing NHS dentistry. An increasing number of constituents are contacting me having gone to their NHS dentist with an acute dental problem only to be told either that NHS patients are no longer being seen or that they have fallen off the list, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned. How can Ministers help in the short term? I know the long-term answer is around the contract—I used to give that answer when I was in her seat—but will the Minister please meet me over a cup of tea so that we can try, as a starter for 10, get to the bottom of this?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have had many cross-party meetings with colleagues about dentistry, with many raising constituency issues that we have followed up. He could speak to his local commissioners, because there can sometimes be local problems with the commissioning of dental services. However, now that we are moving towards 95% of usual activity—a significant change compared with last year— I hope that his constituents will be able to access services more easily.

NHS Ear Irrigation and Microsuction

Steve McCabe: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of access to NHS ear irrigation and microsuction treatments.

Maria Caulfield: Ear wax services are the responsibility of local commissioners, who are responsible for meeting local healthcare needs. Depending on a local area’s arrangements, services should be undertaken either at local primary care practices or through referrals to appropriate local NHS services.

Steve McCabe: Well, I obviously want to thank the Minister for that answer, but I was recently contacted by a constituent who complained that she was told by her GP surgery that such services were no longer available on the NHS and that she should consider obtaining them privately. This is happening despite recent studies that link the effect of impacted cerumen with cognitive decline and dementia. Will the Minister consider writing to clinical commissioning groups to remind them of their obligations and patient entitlements?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There has been no national removal of ear wax services, which can still be commissioned locally. NICE guidance is clear on the types of services that should be commissioned. Traditional methods of manual ear syringing are no longer offered for safety reasons, but electronic irrigation and microsuction should be being offered. If his local CCG is not commissioning such services, I am happy to meet him and them to discuss why not.

Andrew Selous: GPs provided the service for decades. We all understand why the NICE guidance means that they no longer offer syringing, but there is a gap in that many clinical commissioning groups are not offering alternative services. We are talking about people with dementia or receiving end-of-life care who literally cannot hear and are going deaf. The Minister must be direct with CCGs on this issue.

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is right that there must be consistency across the country in how those procedures are commissioned. After today’s questions I will take this up with officials to see why that is not happening consistently across the country.

Regional Health Inequalities

Rushanara Ali: What steps his Department is taking to tackle regional health inequalities.

Sajid Javid: I am determined to tackle unfair disparities in health outcomes. That is why I launched the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. OHID’s regional directors of public health will work with local government and the wider health system to empower local partners with the tools they need to respond to disparities in their regional and local areas. We will also publish a  health disparities White Paper later this year, with a strong focus on prevention, to improve health for the whole population.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but a decade of under-investment and mismanagement have left 4.5 million people on waiting lists and staff shortages of more than 100,000 people even before we entered the pandemic, which exacerbated health inequalities. I welcome the work his Department is doing, but the reality is that people who live in a constituency such as mine are twice as likely to end up on a waiting list for treatment for more than a year as those in better-off areas. While I welcome what he has announced today, may I ask that he puts in appropriate investment to go along with tackling those appalling health inequalities?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of tackling health inequalities; on that we absolutely agree, and I hope she will contribute to the health disparities White Paper that I mentioned a moment ago. However, it is wrong of her to suggest that some of the current challenges we face are because of under-investment or because of a smaller workforce than otherwise. We have the largest investment ever going into the NHS. Its budget this year is bigger than the GDP of Greece. It is the highest amount ever, rising by billions each year. We also have more going to social care than ever before, and the highest level of workforce that the NHS has ever seen in its history.

Caroline Dinenage: Surely one of the cruellest health inequalities is in fertility treatment. Of the 106 CCGs in the country, only six limit the age at which women can have in vitro fertilisation treatment to 35, and two of those are in Hampshire. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can end that most devastating of postcode lotteries?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right, and of course I will be happy to meet her and discuss this further, but I can also tell her that that is one of the key things we will be covering in our upcoming women’s health strategy.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Andrew Gwynne.

Andrew Gwynne: Warm words from the Secretary of State, but people in the most deprived parts of England are almost three times as likely to lose their lives from an avoidable cause as those in the least deprived areas. With the cost of living soaring and the Resolution Foundation estimating that 1.3 million people will be pushed into poverty as a result of the Chancellor’s spring statement, those inequalities will worsen. Why will the Secretary of State not just admit that his Government have failed the poorest communities, and start doing something about it?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman acts as though health inequalities are something that has just emerged under this Government. There have been long-running health inequalities in this country over decades under successive Governments, and this Government are putting in record investment and coming up with the ideas to deal with them. As ever, the Labour party has no idea how to deal with the challenges this country faces.

Jonathan Gullis: Mental health is a serious challenge of our time. It is totally unacceptable that waiting times, average number of sessions and minimum number of sessions differ according to which part of the country someone lives in. Sadly, recent statistics show that in Stoke-on-Trent people are taking their own lives at double the national average. That is why I am proud to support the cross-party “No Time to Wait” campaign, led by James Starkie with the backing of The Daily Telegraph and the Royal College of Nursing, for the provision of mental health nurses in GP surgeries, which could make a real difference to those who bravely come forward asking for help. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, hon. Members of this House who are supportive, and James to discuss how we can make that possible?

Sajid Javid: Yes, of course; I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and others to discuss the campaign. He speaks with passion and I know this is something he has long campaigned on. I have had time to look at some of the content of the campaign, but I would certainly be happy to discuss it further.

NHS Waiting Lists: Southampton

Alan Whitehead: What steps he is taking to reduce NHS waiting lists in Southampton.

Edward Argar: Reducing waiting lists and waiting times, exacerbated of course by the impact of the pandemic, is a key priority for this Government. Southampton, like the rest of the country, will benefit from the detailed actions set out in the elective recovery plan published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a few months ago. In addition, as part of Solent Acute Alliance hospital upgrade programme, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust has received £12.1 million to increase capacity at Southampton General Hospital.

Alan Whitehead: The hospital trust in Southampton, which is an excellent provider, is desperate to get back to elective surgery and non-life-threatening procedures, but finds that it cannot because it cannot integrate covid treatment into general ward activities, and has a continuing high level of staff sickness, which means that procedures are often undertaken very inefficiently in terms of resources. What assistance can the Minister provide for the trust to enable it to get on the front foot as regards elective procedures and non-life-threatening treatments in the near future?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the staff at his hospital trust, and I join him in doing so. The number of those in his area waiting for an elective procedure or routine operation has reduced slightly. There is more to do, but the trust is making inroads, as he says, and I know that it wants to do more. As we set out in the elective recovery plan, some innovations, such as surgical hubs, allow a greater separation between covid areas, or areas where covid may be present, and elective activity is a key part of that. If it is helpful, I am always happy to meet him to discuss the specifics of his local hospital.

Poor Housing Conditions: Health Outcomes

Ian Lavery: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle the effect of poor housing conditions on health outcomes.

Maggie Throup: The Government are committed to tackling poor-quality housing. In the social housing White Paper, we committed to a review of the decent homes standard to test whether it is up to date and reflects current needs and expectations. The levelling-up White Paper sets out a commitment to halve levels of non-decency in all rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the poorest-performing areas. These reforms will have a positive impact on health, and we will work closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to support their implementation.

Ian Lavery: The NHS spends a staggering £2.5 billion-plus annually on treating people with illnesses directly linked to living in cold, damp and dangerous conditions. As a consequence, severe respiratory diseases such as asthma, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are on the increase, mainly in the most deprived areas. Sadly, more and more people are dying. How does the Government’s levelling-up policy plan to tackle this increasingly urgent health issue?

Maggie Throup: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue that we are determined to tackle. Housing is one of the key determinants of health. A decent home can promote good health and protect from illness and harm. As he said, poor housing conditions have severe consequences for mental and physical health. That is why we are determined, not just through the levelling-up White Paper but through the health disparities White Paper that will be published later this year, to set out a bold ambition to reduce the gap in health outcomes and the actions that the Government will be taking to address the wider determinants of health, including the impact of poor housing on health.

Selaine Saxby: In North Devon it is not just the quality of housing that is causing health issues but the lack of availability of affordable housing and a complete collapse of the private rental sector, which is creating mental health issues among my constituents and also means that my much-loved North Devon District Hospital is struggling to recruit adequate local medical services. What steps is the Department taking to try to address these concerns?

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend raises an important issue specific to her area, and other areas that attract people who go there for their holidays and are perhaps not there on a permanent basis. We are determined through our White Papers to address every health inequality, whether caused by a moving population or a static population, in the sorts of areas that the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about.

Cancer Treatment Backlogs: Derbyshire and England

Toby Perkins: What recent assessment he has made of the scale of the backlog in cancer treatments in (a) Derbyshire and (b) England.

Maria Caulfield: Cancer treatment and diagnosis remained a top priority throughout the pandemic, with 4.4 million urgent referrals during the period and over 1 million people receiving cancer treatment. Thanks to the brilliant work of our NHS staff, first treatments for cancer have been maintained at above 94% of usual levels over the course of the pandemic. However, we know that fewer people came forward, so we are now seeing record numbers of people coming through the system, with November last year having the highest number of 11,000 cancer referrals per working day.

Toby Perkins: I asked specifically about Derbyshire, but I did not get an answer. Derbyshire clinical commissioning group has failed to reach any of the cancer referral targets for the most recent 12 months. Although this is a national failure, the shortages are particularly acute in Derbyshire. These failures have tragic consequences. My constituent Paul Bryan is just 58. He has been attending his surgery for two years; he kept getting dismissed and was not tested, and now the prostate cancer that was undiagnosed for all that time has spread to his ribs, spine and bones, and his diagnosis is terminal. His family are urging the Government to show more urgency to improve outcomes, so that other families do not have to experience such needless heartbreak. Will the Minister explain to the Bryans why the Government rejected the workforce planning amendment to the Health and Care Bill that could have helped our NHS get the cancer specialists it needs and prevented heartbreak like the Bryans in other families?

Maria Caulfield: I am sorry to hear about the case of the Bryan family, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in Derby and Derbyshire, 92% of treatments start within 30 days, despite record numbers of patients coming forward. To tackle the issue of getting people diagnosed earlier, which is key to getting more successful treatment, we are rolling out rapid diagnostic centres across the country so that people can access screening and testing much more quickly and easily. We have 159 of those live right now, with more to follow.

Personalised Healthcare

David Simmonds: What steps he is taking to increase the delivery of personalised healthcare.

Sajid Javid: Personalised healthcare is a key priority in my reform agenda. I recently set out a new ambition: that as many as 4 million people benefit from personalised care by 2024, covering everything from social prescribing to personalised support plans. We are also on track to deliver 200,000 personal health budgets and integrated personal budgets by 2023-24.

David Simmonds: I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer. My constituents are still telling me that they are experiencing some delays beyond the NHS guidelines on diagnosis for special treatment. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to address the lack of capacity and need for capacity in specialty-trained doctors and specialist diagnostic equipment, to make personalised care a reality?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the importance of the workforce and medical equipment. He will be reassured to know that the NHS has more doctors and nurses working for it than ever before, with more in training than ever before. We are investing record amounts of capital for new medical equipment, including investment in some 160 new community diagnostic centres, which will all include the latest, state- of-the-art diagnostic equipment.

Mental Health Support for Veterans and Military Charities

Anum Qaisar: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of mental health support for veterans and military charities.

Gillian Keegan: NHS England has several bespoke services for veterans, including Op Courage, the veterans’ mental health and wellbeing service, which provides a complete mental health care pathway for veterans. Veterans can benefit from personalised care plans, ensuring that they can access support and treatment both in and out of hours. As part of the care and support available to veterans, Op Courage works with military charities and local organisations to provide healthcare and address wider health and wellbeing needs, including for drug and alcohol addiction.

Anum Qaisar: My constituency of Airdrie and Shotts has a long military history, with many people having previously served in the armed forces. When I meet veterans from my constituency, we often discuss the mental health of veterans. The war in Ukraine will undoubtedly have an immediate and lasting impact on the mental health of veterans, as they may be reminded of their experiences of war. To help support our veterans, will the Department come forward with a package of emergency funding for armed forces mental health charities?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Lady raises a very good question. Last year, we committed an additional £2.7 million to further expand Op Courage following the recent events in Afghanistan, and NHS England has put in place several bespoke services and initiatives to meet the needs of our armed forces community. In addition to Op Courage, there is the veterans trauma network, the veterans prosthetic panel and the veteran-friendly GP accreditation scheme, but given ongoing events in Ukraine, we will of course keep everything under review. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss further what may be required.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister, Dr Rosena Allin-Khan.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Our veterans have risked their lives for our country and deserve excellent mental health support. We must go even further: from the military frontline to frontline workers who have kept us safe, everyone deserves proper mental health provision. People have stepped up to protect our country and save lives during the pandemic, so is it any wonder that teachers and NHS staff are so furious with the comments made by the hon. Member for Lichfield  (Michael Fabricant), about how they would go back to the staffroom and have a “quiet drink”, in an attempt to justify the indefensible actions of the Prime Minister? What does this say about the effect of mental health on our frontline staff? Will the Minister please condemn those comments and apologise for the hurt caused by those remarks?

Gillian Keegan: I am very happy to say that we of course thank very much all the staff who have been on the frontline, whether veterans or teachers, and involved in everything that kept us going throughout the pandemic. We are of course very much aware of the impact of those stresses and strains on mental health. There is additional support for mental health, and there will continue to be additional support for young people’s mental health and for adult mental health. That is one reason why I launched a call for evidence last week to inform a new 10-year cross-departmental mental health vision, and I urge everybody to input into that process before it closes on 5 July.

NHS Workforce Planning

Kirsty Blackman: What recent progress his Department has made on NHS (a) short-term and (b) long-term workforce planning.

Edward Argar: The workforce are the heart of our NHS, and I join the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), and Opposition Members in paying tribute and putting on record our thanks to those who work in the NHS. In the short term, the NHS has well-established processes to ensure that the health service has the right number of staff with the right skills, and that is alongside our investment in workforce expansion, including delivering 50,000 more nurses over the course of this Parliament. For the longer term, we have commissioned Health Education England to set out the key drivers of workforce supply and demand. It is due to report this spring. Building on that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned NHS England to develop a long-term workforce framework. We will share the conclusions in due course.

Kirsty Blackman: The anti-immigration, “hostile environment” rhetoric and actions of this Government are having a significant impact on our NHS workforce, both by not encouraging people to come here to work in our NHS and by discouraging current staff from staying here. The Health and Social Care Committee recommended the introduction of a national policy framework on migration to support national and local workforce planning. When will the Government implement that recommendation?

Edward Argar: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are clear, and always have been clear, about how much we value the huge contribution that overseas workers in our NHS make towards keeping our health service up and running, and delivering first-class care every day. There are three strands to our approach to building and increasing our workforce. The first is increasing the numbers of people training in this country and the second is increasing retention. The third focuses on the workforce who come from overseas and who are  incredibly welcome here. Indeed, the number of people coming from countries outside the EU into our NHS workforce has increased.

Anne Marie Morris: The Minister will be aware that I have highlighted the challenge for rural areas in developing a workforce plan on a number of occasions. Indeed, the last report from the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and social care made 10 recommendations, including for how we might address workforce planning in rural areas. Will the Minister advise me of what steps he has taken to put in place any of those recommendations to improve the plight of those living in rural areas?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in this issue, which she and I have discussed on a number of occasions. She is right to highlight the challenges that some more remote or rural communities can face in securing the workforce they need to meet their communities’ needs. The HEE work and the subsequent workforce framework will be looking at that across the whole range of different geographies and the challenges they face.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: The Scottish Government have recently bought Carrick Glen, a private healthcare hospital, in order for it to become part of the national network of treatment centres, which once fully operational will have capacity for over 40,000 additional surgeries and procedures each year. In contrast, the UK Government have taken the path of further privatisation of the NHS, so what recent assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the workforce of further privatisation of NHS England?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and had we been going further down the route of privatisation, his question might have had a little more resonance. What we are doing in the NHS in England is investing in our workforce and investing in our national health service, while of course working closely with the independent sector to maximise the use of its capacity in parallel to make sure we bring down waiting lists and waiting times.

Topical Questions

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: Our healthcare system is standing at a crossroads, and sooner or later we will have to make a choice between endlessly going back to the taxpayer to ask for more money and reforming the way in which we do healthcare in our country. Last month, I unveiled an ambitious new programme of reform, setting out how we are going to prioritise prevention, offer more personalised care, deliver improvements in performance and back the people making the difference in the NHS. The objective of this agenda is simple: to bring about the biggest transfer of power and funding in decades from our ever-expanding state to individuals, their families and their communities.

Laurence Robertson: In Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 30% of patients do not medically need to be in hospital; they are waiting for discharge. That figure is twice the national average. Will one of the Ministers contact the relevant people in the health service in Gloucestershire to ask them for ways in which the Government could help them to reduce that figure, because as it stands lives are being put at risk?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to raise this. We are already in contact with the acute trust in Gloucestershire and some of the other trusts that are finding delayed discharge a particular challenge. My hon. Friend will know that, because of the pandemic, what has been a long-term challenge has become much more acute, not least because of the lost beds due to infection protection control and staff absences both in healthcare and in social care. Our delayed discharge taskforce is making a difference—the numbers are coming down overall—but we will be working with Gloucestershire.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: Why does the Health Secretary think he has any licence to lecture the British people on their moral duty to pay taxes when he spent so many years avoiding his own?

Sajid Javid: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not quite sure that is relevant in topical questions.

Sajid Javid: I am very happy to answer if you will allow me, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman could have asked me a question on anything to do with health and care—anything he wanted—but instead he chooses to talk about my personal affairs before public life. That was his choice. He could have asked me about the covid backlogs that he pretends he cares so much about. He could perhaps have given me suggestions—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Secretary of State, I have got it. These are questions about your responsibilities. Now we can have another try—Wes Streeting.

Wes Streeting: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just say to the Secretary of State that he should be careful what he wishes for. I hope he will at least reply to the letter I sent him last Thursday—I will place a copy in the Library of the House. He has been stonewalling journalists’ questions, but since he says he wants to talk about the Government’s record, let me ask him about that instead. We went into the pandemic with NHS waiting lists already at 4.5 million. We went into the pandemic with NHS staff shortages of 100,000. We went into the pandemic with social care staffing vacancies of 112,000. So it is not just the case that the Tories did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they dismantled the roof, removed the floorboards and now they have no plan to fix it. Where is the Secretary of State’s plan to fix the NHS crisis?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Once again, I remind Members that topicals are short and punchy questions, not lengthy statements. A lot of Back Benchers on both sides deserve to get in to raise constituency matters, so please let us give them time. I do not want a lengthy fall-out, and these are Health questions.

Sajid Javid: Mr Speaker, you have been very generous to the hon. Gentleman: you gave him another try, but that was another failure to ask a question. Again, the hon. Gentleman is not asking about the serious issues, which again shows that he will play petty party politics and that Labour has no plan for the challenges this country faces.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just reassure the Secretary of State for Health that I was not being generous? The shadow Secretary of State had two questions, so I have not been generous in any shape, way or form.

Mark Fletcher: We have all seen the disturbing scenes in Shanghai recently. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows how dangerous a zero covid strategy is and that we were right to open up this country and to rely on our vaccines as the safest way out of the covid situation?

Sajid Javid: Like many across the House I have been deeply disturbed by the reports we have all seen from Shanghai and my thoughts are with the people affected. It shows what a dangerous fallacy this whole idea of zero covid was, and it also shows that we are the most open country in Europe and that we have got the big decisions right. We did not listen to the Opposition when they said we should not open up in the summer, and we did not listen to them when they again called for restrictions in the winter. We are showing the world how to live with covid.

Rachael Maskell: My constituents have been forced on to private and unaffordable dental plans or they have to wait up to five years to see an NHS dentist. The situation is getting worse and worse, so I met with the groundbreaking Hull York Medical School to see if it can assist in training a future generation of dentists and it is keen to help; what is the Minister doing to work with medical schools?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Come on; we have got to get others in.

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and we have met to discuss this previously. I am happy to discuss with Health Education England whether one of its centres for dentist development could be suitable for her constituency.

Peter Bone: In 2019 Kettering General Hospital, which serves my constituency, was promised £46 million for a major upgrade. Three years later the hospital still has not got the money. Secretary of State, will you go out and buy a very big pair of scissors, cut through the red tape and get it sorted?

Edward Argar: No one, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), is more passionate than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about seeing improvements delivered in their local hospital, and I had the pleasure of visiting. As my  hon. Friend will know, the £46 million was allocated originally for an urgent treatment centre; the hospital asked that that be changed and it folded in with the overall programme. It has yet to submit a business case for the enabling works; when it does, I will make sure that it is expedited.

Tony Lloyd: The gap in life expectancy between people living in the richest and poorest areas is once again growing. That affects my constituents directly. I have heard nothing to date that tells me what the Secretary of State is going to do to narrow the gap; Secretary of State, what will you do to protect my constituents?

Sajid Javid: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I know his constituency well; it is my birthplace. He might also know that just a couple of months ago I visited his constituency and met members of the local community at the Deeplish community centre to talk about exactly what he has rightly raised today: the importance of tackling inequalities in Rochdale and beyond. We will set out our plans in our upcoming health disparities White Paper.

James Sunderland: The Cass review interim report found that to date there is a profound lack of evidence on the best approach to treat gender dysphoria in children. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in spite of this the NHS insists on making a child’s expressed gender identity the start-point for treatment, and my surprise that the NHS has chosen so far not to track patient outcomes, particularly for under-18s?

Sajid Javid: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, which is why the NHS commissioned this review from one of our top paediatricians. It is already clear to me from her interim findings and the other evidence I have seen that NHS services in this area are too narrow; they are overly affirmative and in fact are bordering on ideological. That is why in this emerging area, of course we need to be absolutely sensitive, but we also need to make sure that holistic care is provided, that there is not a one-way street and that all medical interventions are based on the best clinical evidence.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Since February 2020 my local borough of Lambeth has seen a 14% drop in dementia diagnosis. That means people are not getting the support that comes from diagnosis. We also know that so far none of the announced £8 billion backlog funding has been dedicated to addressing the stagnation of diagnosis rates. Can the Secretary of State explain what exactly he is going to do to make sure that people get diagnosed on time?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Lady raises a very important question. We want a society in which every person with dementia and their families and carers receive high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to end of life. We have provided £17 million this financial year to NHS England and NHS Improvement to increase the number of diagnoses. That funding was spent in a range of ways, including investing in the workforce to increase capacity in memory assessment services.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt: The Secretary of State will have read the scandal exposed in The Sunday Times this weekend that six babies are born every month after being exposed to sodium valproate, which has been known for many years to cause disabilities. Last year the Government consulted on putting warning labels on valproate. Is it not time to go much further and ban the prescription of sodium valproate to epileptic pregnant mothers?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is right to raise this, and many of us will have seen the recent reports, especially from the families affected. It is right that we reconsider this and make sure that sodium valproate, and any other medicine, is given only in the clinically appropriate setting.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State is right that we all want to get to the bottom of many important health matters, and we do not want what he described as personal affairs to get in the way of that. In order to ensure that the House concentrates entirely on those matters, will he welcome HMRC investigating whether he was claiming non-dom status on a solely—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us move on. What a waste of a question. Dehenna Davison.

Dehenna Davison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try not to make this one a waste. I was grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss my ongoing campaign to restore the A&E to Bishop Auckland Hospital. Many of my constituents face a long drive to get to Darlington or Durham, and given that swift treatment can be a significant factor in outcomes for conditions such as strokes and heart attacks, does he agree that having A&E services spread geographically rather than just in strong population centres is an essential part of keeping our community safe?

Edward Argar: I did indeed have a positive and constructive meeting with my hon. Friend. It is right that we have access geographically spread to A&E services, but the decisions are rightly taken by clinical commissioners on the basis of clinical evidence. I know that she will continue fighting the corner for the reopening of her local A&E with tenacity and passion.

Sharon Hodgson: The 10-year cancer plan that the Secretary of State has announced is a key opportunity to ensure that future services are designed with the patient at their core, especially for those living with cancer. What steps is his Department taking to engage with under-represented groups in the development of the 10-year cancer plan, and will he agree to meet with Macmillan Cancer Support to discuss how it can provide support in this key area?

Sajid Javid: I would be pleased to have the meeting that the hon. Lady has suggested. She should know that we just closed the consultation on the 10-year cancer plan. There has been a fantastic response. She may also  have seen the announcement that we made today about lung cancer health checks. With improvements like that, we intend to do a lot more.

Ruth Edwards: One of the best ways to maximise NHS capacity is to increase people’s access to GP appointments and treatments such as mental health services and physiotherapy in their own communities. Will the Minister join me in backing our bid for a new health centre in East Leake and in calling on Nottinghamshire’s clinical commissioning group to prioritise funds for this vital service?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I had an excellent visit to the surgery in East Leake, and I look forward to the submission of the business case so that we can look at it further. She is right that investing in primary care does a huge amount to support the health of the local community.

Helen Hayes: A survey by the charity stem4 has found that 95% of GPs believe that children and adolescent mental health services are in crisis, with children and young people waiting up to two years for treatment after referral. Will the Secretary of State stop treating children as an afterthought and act to provide open access mental health hubs for young people in every community, to put an end to these agonising waits?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I know that children’s mental health services are treating more young people than ever. However, the demand has quadrupled since the pandemic and that is why we have invested £79 million in these services. By 2023-24, an extra 345,000 more young people will be accessing support. I mentioned the call for evidence. It is important that we work through our vision for our 10-year plan. We are also introducing mental health support teams in schools, which will help, plus access to community and mental health hubs, and more young people will have access to eating disorder services, but there is a lot of work ongoing.

Stephen Metcalfe: I know from discussions with constituents that needle phobias are a real thing. Will my right hon. Friend therefore tell the House what support the Government are giving to intranasal vaccine delivery systems to ensure that the maximum number of people take up the vaccine?

Maggie Throup: The Department of Health and Social Care commissioned research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, co-funded with UK Research and Innovation, for an Imperial College London study, worth £580,000, looking specifically at the safety and effectiveness of two covid-19 vaccines administered by respiratory tract. The study is ongoing, but it is in the later stages of the phase one clinical trial, and the results will be made public in due course, following peer review.

Virendra Sharma: Those providing social care often work long hours and are a real lifeline for the most vulnerable. Will the Minister  act to ensure that those in social care are paid properly with a real living wage, as Citizens UK is campaigning for?

Gillian Keegan: Actually, according to Skills for Care data from 2020-21, the majority of care workers were paid above the national living wage in that year. Most care workers are employed by private sector providers who set their terms and conditions. However, we have committed £1.36 billion to the market sustainability and fair cost fund, which will support local authorities to move towards paying providers a fair cost of care. We hope that will lead to better sustainability and better staff.

Simon Jupp: At Prime Minister’s questions, I raised a local campaign for a specialist menopause clinic in Devon. I am pleased the Minister agreed to meet me. Will my hon. Friend encourage local NHS leaders to fund specialist menopause centres?

Maria Caulfield: The Government recognise that menopause services need to improve, which is why menopause is a priority area in our women’s health strategy. We recognise such services are often best provided in primary care, but that some women need specialist services. We are looking at that in our women’s health strategy and the menopause taskforce.

Kate Osborne: In December last year, the Department of Health and Social Care promised three urgent actions to tackle the gender health gap: the appointment of a women’s health ambassador; legislation to ban hymenoplasty; and the publication of the women’s health strategy for England in spring 2022. Can I ask the Minister when those vital actions are actually going to happen?

Maria Caulfield: I can let the hon. Lady know that interviews have taken place for a women’s health ambassador. We are expecting an announcement on the appointment any day now. We will be publishing the women’s health strategy in the coming weeks.

David Evennett: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend is doing to address health inequalities. However, could I ask him to look carefully at public health funding for my borough of Bexley, as we are seriously underfunded compared with similar boroughs in London?

Sajid Javid: I would be very pleased to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss that further. I am sure he will welcome the publication of the upcoming health disparities White Paper.

Kim Leadbeater: In a recent survey by Carers UK, almost half of unpaid carers said that they are currently unable to manage their monthly energy bills and expenses, and that any further increases would negatively affect their own physical and mental health, or that of the person they care for. What steps are being taken, along with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to support those hard-working exhausted unpaid carers with the cost of living?

Gillian Keegan: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and of course we have a great deal of gratitude for every unpaid carer. Around 360,000 carer households on universal credit can receive an additional £2,000 a year through the carer element. The weekly rate of carer’s   allowance increased to £69.70 in April 2022. Also, real-terms expenditure on carer’s allowance is forecast to increase by around £1.3 billion. In addition, there is a big focus, in our reforms and in the White Paper, on what more we need to do to support unpaid carers.

Global Migration Challenge

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the United Kingdom’s approach to the global migration challenge.
The United Kingdom has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to refugees. In recent years alone, we have welcomed more than 185,000 people through safe and legal routes, including from Syria, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and, more recently, Ukraine. In addition, we have welcomed more than 40,000 people in recent years through our refugee family reunion routes. This Government have done more than any other in recent history to support those fleeing persecution, conflict or instability.
But we cannot focus our support on those who need it most or effectively control our borders without tackling illegal migration, which is facilitated by people smugglers—serious organised criminals who profit from human misery, who do not care about people drowning in the channel or suffocating in the back of containers. We must break their lethal and evil business model by removing the demand for their repugnant activities. This type of illegal migration puts unsustainable pressures on our public services and local communities. Every day, the broken asylum system costs the taxpayer almost £5 million in hotel accommodation alone. The cost of the asylum system is the highest in over two decades at over £1.5 billion.
As the Prime Minister said last week:
“We cannot sustain a parallel illegal system. Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”
That is why the new plan for immigration and its legislative vehicle—the Nationality and Borders Bill—are so vital. Once again, I urge hon. Members and Members in the other place to follow this elected House in backing the Bill.
At the heart of this Government’s approach is a simple principle: fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. More than 80 million people around the world are displaced. Others are on the move because they want a better life. There is a global migration crisis that demands innovative and international solutions, and this Government are taking firm action.
When we published the new plan for immigration back in March last year, we set out three very clear objectives: to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum; to deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to the UK, thereby breaking the business model of criminal smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here.
The Ministry of Defence has taken command of small boat operations in the channel. Every small boat incident will be investigated to determine who piloted the boat and could therefore be liable for prosecution. These reforms are a truly cross-government effort, including the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Prosecution Service, Border Force and the Ministry of Justice.
A nationwide dispersal system will be introduced so that asylum pressures are more equally spread across local authorities. Currently, 53% of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales do not accommodate asylum seekers under the dispersal system. It is simply unfair that a national burden should be felt disproportionately by certain areas of the country.
For the first time, the Government are building asylum reception centres to end the practice of housing asylum seekers in expensive hotels. A new reception centre in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire will open shortly. Far from being outlandish, as some in the Opposition have commented, asylum reception centres are already operational in safe EU countries such as Greece and they are funded by the EU.
Just last week, I signed a new world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. Under this partnership, those who travel to the UK by illegal and dangerous routes, including by small boats across the channel, may be relocated to Rwanda, where they will have their asylum claims considered. Those in need of protection will be given up to five years of support, including education and employment training and help with integration, accommodation and healthcare, so that they can thrive there. The UK is supporting this investment in Rwanda over five years, boosting the Rwandan economy and increasing opportunities for people living there, further cementing the trading and diplomatic relationship between our countries.
This is a bespoke international agreement reached last week with Rwanda; I came to Parliament as soon as was reasonably practicable following the conclusion of that agreement. The agreement is compatible with all our domestic and international legal obligations. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations human rights conventions, and has a strong system for refugee resettlement. The United Nations has used Rwanda for several years to relocate refugees, and of course it was the European Union that first funded that.
This agreement deals a major blow to the people smugglers and their evil trade in human cargo. Everyone who is considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed—that will include an age assessment—and will have access to legal services. In relation to accounting officer advice, contrary to reports in the newspapers, the permanent secretary did not oppose this agreement; nor did he assert that it is poor value for money. Rather, he stated in his role as accounting officer that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money.
It is the job of Ministers to take decisions—more often than not, tough decisions—in the interests of our country. Existing approaches have failed, and there is no single solution to these problems—something that I think Opposition Members may have encountered in the past as well. Change is needed, because people are dying attempting to come to the UK by illegal and dangerous routes. This partnership is the type of international co-operation needed to make the global immigration system fairer, keep people safe and give them opportunities to flourish. This will help to break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for those who are genuinely vulnerable.
This Government are delivering the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system and of this type of illegal migration in decades. At the heart of this approach is fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to British taxpayers and the scandalous abuses are increasing. The British public have rightly had enough. Our new plan for immigration will improve support for those directly fleeing oppression, persecution and tyranny through safe and legal routes. It will deter illegal and dangerous routes of entry to the UK, make it easier to remove those with no right to be in the UK and provide a common-sense approach to controlling immigration, both legal and illegal. I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: We have seen, over the past week, this unworkable, shameful and desperate attempt to distract from the Prime Minister’s lawbreaking. The Home Secretary should not go along with it, because she is undermining not just respect for the rule of law, but her office, by providing cover for him. The policies that she has announced today are unworkable, unethical and extortionate in their cost to the British taxpayer.
There was no information from the Home Secretary about the costs today. Will she admit that the £120 million that she has announced does not pay for a single person to be transferred? She has not actually got an agreement on the price for each person; in fact, £120 million is the eye-watering price that the Home Office is paying just for a press release. What is the rest of the cost? What is this year’s budget? How many people will it cover? The Home Office has briefed that it might be £30,000 per person to cover up to three months’ accommodation, but that is already three times more than the ordinary cost of dealing with an asylum case in the UK.
The Home Secretary said in her statement that she would provide five years of costs. In Australia, offshoring costs £1.7 million per person, which is over 100 times more than the ordinary asylum cost here. Where will all the money come from to fund the plan? She says that she will save money on hotels, but the only reason why we are paying a fortune in hotel costs is that Home Office decision making has totally collapsed. On the Home Secretary’s watch, the Home Office is taking only 14,000 initial asylum decisions a year, half as many as it was taking five years ago. It is taking fewer decisions than Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria, never mind France and Germany. The costs to the UK taxpayer have soared by hundreds of millions of pounds because the Home Secretary is not capable of taking basic asylum decisions—and because she is not capable of taking those decisions, she is trying to pay Rwanda to take them instead. Whether or not people are refugees, whether or not they are victims of modern slavery, whether or not they have family members in the UK and whether or not they have come from Afghanistan, Syria or even Ukraine, the Home Secretary is asking Rwanda to do the job that she is not capable of doing.
The Home Secretary says that this policy will deter boats and traffickers, but the permanent secretary says otherwise: he says that there is no evidence of a deterrent  effect, and that there has been a total failure to crack down on the criminal gangs that are at the heart of this problem. The number of prosecutions for human trafficking and non-sexual exploitation has fallen from 59 in 2015 to just two in 2020. The criminals will not be deterred because someone whom they exploited was sent to Rwanda. They do not give money-back guarantees under which they lose money if their victims end up somewhere else instead. They will just spin more lies. The Home Secretary is totally failing to crack down on criminal gangs. Why does she not get on with her basic job, crack down on human traffickers, do the serious work with France and Belgium to prevent the boats from setting out in the first place—which she did not even mention in her statement—and make decisions fast?
The Home Secretary is using this policy to distract people from years of failure. She promised three years ago to halve the number of crossings, but it has increased tenfold, and this will make trafficking worse. The top police chief and anti-slavery commissioner has said that the Home Secretary’s legislation will make it harder to prosecute traffickers. When Israel tried paying Rwanda to take refugees and asylum seekers a few years ago, independent reports showed that that increased people-smuggling and increased the action of the criminal gangs. This is the damage that the Home Secretary is doing. She is making things easier for the criminal gangs and harder for those who need support, at a time when people across our country have come forward to help those who are fleeing Ukraine—to help desperate refugees. Instead of working properly with other countries, the Home Secretary is doing the opposite. All she is doing is making things easier for the criminal gangs.
Will the Home Secretary tell us the facts? Will she tell us about the real costs of this policy, and the real damage that it will do in respect of human trafficking and people- smuggling? Will she come clean to the public, and come clean to the House?

Priti Patel: That response to my statement was, if I may say so, wholly predictable. It is important to say to everyone in the House that we cannot put a price on saving human lives, and I think everyone will respect that completely.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was a Minister in the Blair Government when the powers that give this Government the legal basis for this policy were introduced. When she occupied a seat in the Blair Government, I do not remember her exploding in synthetic rage when all those policies were implemented, after Acts were passed in 1999, 2002 and 2004 to bring about similar partnerships —the same partnerships, by the way, that were used to establish the Dublin regulations to return inadmissible asylum seekers to EU member states. The right hon. Lady has gone on record multiple times attacking the Government for abandoning those regulations, and at the same time calling for a replacement. Now she is attacking the Government for using the very powers that only a few weeks ago she said we could still be using if we had not left the EU.
What we have heard today from the right hon. Lady and the Opposition demonstrates their absolute inability to understand this issue—the differentiation between legal and illegal migration. They should be honest about their policies. They stand for open borders and  uncontrolled immigration. I will, if I may, go even further: the right hon. Lady described the policy as unworkable and extortionate. If it is unworkable, it cannot be extortionate. We will make payments based on delivery. That is the point of our scheme. Nowhere in her response to the statement did the right hon. Lady put forward an alternative that would actually seek to deal with people-trafficking and deaths in the channel. Importantly, the Labour party is being exposed today as having no policy, and no idea how to stop people-smuggling.

Theresa May: With respect to my right hon. Friend, from what I have heard and seen so far of the removal to Rwanda policy, I do not support it on the grounds of legality, practicality or efficacy. I want to ask her about one specific issue. I understand that only young men, and not families, will be removed. The Home Secretary is shaking her head, so I have obviously misunderstood the policy in that sense. If it is the case that families will not be broken up—the Home Secretary is nodding—where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?

Priti Patel: I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further, and to give her further information —[Interruption.] Calm down and listen. First and foremost, the policy is legal and a memorandum of understanding has been published that states very clearly—[Interruption.] Members are not even listening, so there is no point. The MOU states clearly in terms of the legal—[Interruption.] If Members are interested in listening to the responses, please do. The MOU that has been published spells out in full detail the legalities and the nature of the agreement. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) would respect the fact that I am not going to speak about the eligibility criteria on the Floor of the House. [Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Because, as my right hon. Friend will know very well, those types of criteria are used by the smuggling gangs to exploit various loopholes in our laws to do with, for example, legal action to prevent removals. Opposition Members write to me frequently asking me not to remove some of the failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders who have no legal basis for remaining in our country. I will be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: This is a cruel and catastrophic policy. It will not hurt smugglers, but it will further seriously harm people who have fled persecution. It will do untold damage to the international system of refugee protection, and to what little remains of the UK’s reputation for upholding international law. This is worse than temporary offshoring; it is offloading responsibility altogether. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said, people fleeing persecution should not be “traded like commodities”, and in words of the Refugee Council, this is nothing short of cash for deportations. We know that 85% of refugees are in the developing or least developed countries, yet here is the wealthy UK offering them cash to take some more. So much for global Britain.
The only thing that is transparent about this policy is its dodgy timing and grubby political motivation. In the interests of proper transparency, will the Home Secretary finally publish a detailed estimate of how many billions this policy will cost? She was chuntering that she had the deal sorted out, so she should now announce it to Members of the House. And for what are we paying this money? Can she say what percentage of asylum seekers coming to the UK will be subjected to this abysmal treatment? Reports from Rwanda suggest capacity for probably around1%, but certainly less than 5%. Is that correct? We are told people will be screened before transfer, but how can a pathetic screening interview possibly pick out trafficking survivors, torture victims or LGBT people? Quite simply, it cannot, so is she happy to see those people subjected to this treatment?
Why are women and children within the scope of this policy? Will people going through the screening process be able to access legal advice? Why are we not allowed to see the criteria for deciding who will be sent? Where is the transparency in that? How will she monitor their treatment? Her Government have completely failed to stop abuses in UK detention centres, never mind in centres that are 5,000 miles away. In short, this disastrous policy has nothing to do with the global migration crisis and everything to do with distracting from the Prime Minister’s political crises. It is absolutely sickening, for all that.

Priti Patel: Just for the record, I think the hon. Gentleman’s latter comment was absolutely unacceptable. It does a great disservice not just to this Government and the officials who have worked for over nine months on this partnership, but also to our counterparts in Rwanda who have been working with us, to my international counterparts who are working collectively to tackle the issues of illegal migration, and to some counterparts in the EU as well.
To answer some specific points, I think it is shameful that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is playing party political games on that point, just like the Labour party. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman lets me answer the question, I will.
The other point is that Rwanda has successfully resettled more than 130,000 refugees. I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments are a slur on the successful efforts of our partners in Rwanda. Rwanda is a safe and secure country with respect for the rule of law. I think hon. Members should listen to the undercurrent of their tone towards Rwanda, which has done a great deal to provide safety, refuge, security and a new life to many refugees from around the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the approach we will take. Everyone considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed, they will have access to legal advice, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nobody will be removed if it would be unsafe or inappropriate for them.
The hon. Gentleman is not the first hon. Member to mention legal obligations and the legalities. Rwanda is beholden to the same legal obligations on human rights as the United Kingdom and I make the point again that I think there is something really quite unpleasant about the undercurrent of the tone towards Rwanda.

Gary Sambrook: The latest figures suggest that, in December, more than 7,000 people in Birmingham were claiming asylum support amounting to tens of millions of pounds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this partnership with Rwanda will reduce the reliance on hotels and reduce the number of small boat crossings?

Priti Patel: There are a number of things—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) were less hysterical and actually listened, she might learn something about the new plan for immigration.
It is important to reflect on a number of points. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, because we do not want people to be in hotel accommodation. It is a cheap point for Opposition Members to make, but we had to use hotel accommodation to protect people during the pandemic, and Public Health England guidance spoke to that.
On decision making—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury chooses to listen, the new plan for immigration is about speeding up asylum decisions and processing through legislation and the digitalisation of the system. I have to add that, because every single Opposition Member voted against this policy, they clearly want open borders. They just want to have uncontrolled migration, and they have done nothing to come up with an alternative plan on this issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.

Diana R. Johnson: The announcement made last week, when Parliament was not sitting, has caused a great deal of confusion about what this policy actually entails. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary turned her head away from the microphone when she responded to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), so I wonder whether she will answer the question of who will actually be eligible to be sent to Rwanda. Will it be single young men, or will it be women and children? What percentage of asylum seekers does she think will be sent to Rwanda?

Priti Patel: On eligibility, as I have already said, everyone considered for relocation will be screened and interviewed and have the right access to legal advice and services, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. That is absolutely right and proper, but the fundamental principle in relation to this policy and the new plan for immigration, in which I am sure the right hon. Lady is well versed, is that it will apply to people who are inadmissible to our asylum system and to people who have come to our country illegally: through illegal and dangerous routes.

Kevin Hollinrake: The asylum reception centre to which my right hon. Friend referred will be at Linton-on-Ouse in my constituency. I am not a nimby in any shape or form but, nevertheless, the RAF base on which it will be situated is at the centre of that small rural village. Local people are understandably concerned that this is not an appropriate place to put such a reception centre. Will she meet me to discuss that decision and to see what can be done?

Priti Patel: Absolutely. I want to thank my hon. Friend because he has been in dialogue with Ministers on that issue. I would be very happy to meet him. Of course, he understands the principle behind all of this, so I am very happy to discuss that with him further.

Diane Abbott: The Home Secretary asserts that Labour Members do not understand the issue, but she will be aware that a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Normington, said last week about her Rwanda policy:
“It’s inhumane, it’s morally reprehensible, it’s probably unlawful and it may well be unworkable”.
How does she come to know better than a former Home Office permanent secretary?

Priti Patel: First, I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is using Sir David’s name in vain, given that a former Labour Home Secretary infamously and discourteously described the Home Office leadership and management as “not fit for purpose” during Sir David’s tenure. Things have moved on in terms of the asylum system. Her party and other Opposition Members continuously vote against the new plan for immigration, but they have no plan to deal with these important and difficult issues. It will bring in the reform that our country needs, while making sure that we preserve the efficacy of safe and legal routes for people fleeing persecution to come to our country and get the support they need.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend deserves great personal credit for seeking to tackle the dreadful crisis that exists in the channel, but does she accept that many of us have grave concerns that the policy she has announced simply will not work? On the cost, can she confirm that she will not be using expensive military aircraft to make the 9,000-mile round trip? Also on cost, will she ensure that before the House of Commons votes on this matter tomorrow we know the cost per asylum seeker of those she is sending to Rwanda?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend knows Rwanda incredibly well. We have had many discussions about it and I am very happy to meet him to have further discussions. We will not be using military planes for any removals. He will, like many Members of this House, be pretty familiar with the approach we take to removing failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders to return them to their country of origin or to third countries. There is a whole process around this, which involves a lot of operational work and detail. I am happy to talk to him privately about that because the ways in which we can do this are complicated. He makes further points that I am happy to discuss with him as well.

Clive Efford: Can the Home Secretary say whether she has negotiated a cap on the cost of this arrangement with Rwanda? What will be the cost per person sent? Is there a limit on that cost? If so, what is it?

Priti Patel: On cost, as I have already published and said, there is an upfront £120 million development cost and, with that, of course, when we remove people, payments will be made accordingly—only once we have removed people to Rwanda.

Andrea Leadsom: I am incredibly proud of this country and this Government’s track record in providing a safe welcome to more than 185,000 asylum seekers and refugees since 2015, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will be ramping up the welcome for Ukrainian refugees—I know she will be working flat out at it. What I find abhorrent and inexplicable is the way in which many Opposition Members, and even those in the top echelons in the Church of England and in other faiths, seem to have completely forgotten the images of children lying drowned on our beaches. How can they not seek to try to remedy that appalling situation? These people are not refugees and asylum seekers—they are coming from France.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and observations. She will be well aware of the work that our noble Friend Lord Harrington is currently doing in the other place on the Ukrainian scheme in terms of resettling people and bringing people over for the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
The left in particular like to preach compassion, but there is little compassion when they do not have the backbone to make difficult decisions when it comes to the protection of human life. For months and months, they have talked about saving lives and lost lives, and now that there is the prospect of action to save lives and to go after the evil people smugglers, they wring their hands and choose to play party political games.

Stella Creasy: Members throughout this House are desperately concerned about the children who are often on these boats, so can we have a straight answer from the Home Secretary? Does she intend one of the criteria that prevents somebody from being sent to Rwanda to be their being under 18? Crucially, where will the processing and the decision making as to whether or not somebody is under 18 take place? Please, Home Secretary, be straight and honest with us about what you intend to do with these children. We all deserve better.

Priti Patel: I have already spoken about the processing and the eligibility—[Interruption.] Yes, I have. I absolutely have. Operational decisions are for the officials and practitioners on the ground who undertake them. That is part of our process that the hon. Lady should respect.

Peter Bone: The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), was slightly wrong when she talked about human trafficking. This is not human trafficking; this is people smuggling. This is about evil gangs being paid money to take people across the channel. They do not care about the lives of these individuals. The only way we are going to stop the people smuggling is if we reduce the demand for it, and the Home Secretary’s Rwanda policy is absolutely right. Does she agree that her policy is morally the right thing to do?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a distinction and a significant difference between people trafficking and smuggling. It is the people-smuggling gangs that we are trying to stop. We are trying to break up their business model and end their evil trade, and it is absolutely right that we do so. When it comes to cases of  human trafficking, it is a well-known fact that it is down to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and the work of this Government, that we have stood up the legalities and the proper processes to give those people who have been trafficked the legal protection and the safety and security that they need in our country.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many people she expects to send to Rwanda in the first 12 months of the scheme? She will be aware that Rwandan Government Ministers are on the record as saying that they expect their capacity to be in the hundreds, with a few thousand over the five-year period. Given that 28,000 people crossed the channel last year, does the Home Secretary really think the scheme is going to have the deterrent effect that she claims for it?

Priti Patel: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. The scheme is uncapped and that is exactly what we have negotiated with the Rwandan Government.

David Davis: The Home Secretary is quite properly focused on saving lives, so may I ask her a practical question? The World Bank has said that Rwanda has one of the highest incidences of malaria in the world. Our own Government website warns travellers about hepatitis A and B, tetanus, typhoid, cholera and tuberculosis, not to mention rabies and dengue fever, which cannot be vaccinated against. What are the Government going to do, both from an ethical and moral point of view and to protect the British taxpayer against compensation claims, to protect the asylum seekers who go to Rwanda?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend makes some important points. The partnership we have undertaken with the Rwandan Government is based not only on direct support, technical expertise, education and training but, as I said in my statement, on providing care in terms of individuals’ health and resettlement needs.

Paula Barker: The proposal to treat refugees differently based on how they arrived in the UK undermines a key principle of refugee protection. Such an approach weakens the very foundation of the 1951 refugee convention and contradicts the steps agreed to by the UK upon signing up to the global compact on refugees. What legal assurances did the Government seek about the protection of people in Rwanda, which has an authoritarian regime with one person in power for 30 years?

Priti Patel: I have already been very clear that Rwanda is a safe country. People arriving in the United Kingdom are coming here illegally from safe countries, which is where they should claim asylum in the first place. Rwanda is not just a safe country, as I have said, but one that has resettled over 100,000 refugees. I appreciate that the hon. Lady just mentioned countries in both the EU and UN, both of which have deemed it safe to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, and Rwanda is beholden to the same legal obligations on human rights as the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady’s tone towards Rwanda is deeply offensive in the light of our partnership relationship.

Natalie Elphicke: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is both a moral and financial responsibility to bring small boat crossings to an end and to save lives? That is what this bold package of measures is seeking to do.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to her work with the Home Office as the Member of Parliament for Dover, which has been at the forefront of receiving people coming to the UK, and to her county council, which has been under significant pressure for many years. The dispersal policy, which was first proposed by the leader of Kent County Council, has taken time to be pushed forward, but it will not only have a significant impact on the people and taxpayers of Kent, but see the principle of fairness applied to people who rightly come to our country through legal routes as opposed to those with no legal basis to be in the UK.

Joanna Cherry: This afternoon the Home Secretary has described Rwanda as a safe and secure country, saying that to suggest otherwise is a slur. However, on at least two occasions only last year, the United Kingdom called for an investigation at the United Nations into torture, deaths in custody, extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in Rwanda. Was that a slur by the UK, or was it a well-founded request? What was the outcome of the request? What legal assurances has she obtained from Rwanda regarding the treatment of any asylum seekers sent there?

Priti Patel: Under this agreement, as I have said, Rwanda will process claims in accordance with the UN refugee convention and national and international human rights laws. Importantly, it will ensure that individuals are resettled in the right way. Over 130,000 refugees have been resettled in Rwanda, and it is not just a safe country, but one where both the UNHCR and the EU have resettled individuals. Finally, with all partnerships—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to listen, I will answer the question. We have thorough discussions in all partnerships, and in these negotiations, including those on human rights, we have worked closely with the Rwandan Government on the need to protect vulnerable people seeking safety and a new life.

Bob Neill: The Home Secretary is right to deal with the issue of criminal people trafficking and to recognise the frustration of many at the length of time it takes to remove people who are here unlawfully from this country. The caveat many of us would enter, however, is whether this scheme will achieve either of those objectives. Can she tell me how she can assume that a set of criteria to determine claims, as clearly must be drawn up, is likely to be free from legal challenge, if the criteria are not published and transparently available? Would it not be much better to invest the significant amounts of money we are talking about in speeding up the work of our current immigration system, in recruiting more immigration tribunal judges and in more investigative resource for the Home Office, so that we can achieve the objectives without the financial and potential legal risks that the current scheme involves?

Priti Patel: We are doing both. My hon. Friend will know that the legislation for the new plan for immigration does exactly that by introducing the one-stop shop for  immigration courts and tribunals, stopping the merry-go-round of various legal practices being used to prevent the removal of individuals with no legal right to be in the United Kingdom and the constant right of appeal in the immigration courts, which slows down the processing of cases. That is the purpose of the new plan for immigration. There are clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill that, I repeat for the benefit of the House, the entire Opposition voted against, because they do not want to see the issue of illegal migration and reform of the asylum system addressed at all. Those are many of the challenges we are confronted with every single day.

Hilary Benn: On the basis of what evidence has the Home Secretary concluded that this policy of forcing some asylum seekers on to planes to Rwanda will have a deterrent effect on people getting into boats to cross the channel?

Priti Patel: I alluded to that in my statement earlier. This is exactly what is required to break up the evil people-smuggling gangs. We are bringing in that deterrent effect, but I have been clear that there is no single solution. Frankly, those on the Opposition Benches can scream hysterically as much as they want, but they do not have a plan. They have supported for decades uncontrolled migration through whatever route. There is a degree of dishonesty now with the British public, at a time when we could come together to support the proposals, now that we have proposals in the Nationality and Borders Bill and a safe third country, which many called for in debates as the Bill went through this House and the other place. Now they just wring their hands and, typically, just oppose any option or solution that could make a difference.

Lee Anderson: We can see from the level of questions coming from the Opposition, especially the Labour party, that they are completely out of touch with the British public. In the interests of safety, can the Home Secretary please confirm that if anybody does not want to go to Rwanda, they can claim asylum in France?

Priti Patel: France is a safe country.

Karen Buck: The Home Secretary has been pressed several times on the question of who will and who will not be liable to be included in this scheme, and specifically whether it will include women and children. She has refused to say, despite having been asked by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If the Home Secretary knows how many people she believes will be included in the scheme over the coming months, surely she knows what the criteria will be. If so, is it not her duty to inform this House of them?

Priti Patel: I have made the point several times about those who are inadmissible to the asylum system, which is those who come to our country through illegal routes. We have made abundantly clear time and again that we are bringing in these reforms to stop that illegal trade in people smuggling, by creating safe and legal routes for women, children and families so that they do not have to be put in the hands of the evil people smugglers. As I have said, we will consider everyone for relocation through  the process I have outlined on a case-by-case basis, and no one will be sent to the third country if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.

Alun Cairns: Asylum is sought by some of the world’s most desperate people fleeing some of the most horrendous sorts of crimes, but sadly this process is abused by so many people traffickers exploiting the vulnerability of those people. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that she will continue to develop safe and legal routes for some of those people who have been left in refugee camps around the world for so many years?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend makes the most important point about safe and legal routes. As I announced in my statement, we have resettled over 180,000 people through safe and legal routes—more than any Government in recent years. Those routes include Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and now Ukraine. We will continue to do exactly that. I have said in the House on a number of occasions that safe and legal routes should be bespoke because every single crisis is unique. It is right that we work with the right international partners to make sure that we provide safety and security for those fleeing persecution and oppression.

Tony Lloyd: The Home Secretary will know that Israel introduced a seemingly very similar scheme to this and then abandoned it. Can she tell us precisely why she believes that failed and why what she has put forward will succeed?

Priti Patel: I cannot comment on the schemes of other countries when they are not comparable to what the British Government are doing. This is a different scheme. It is a migration and economic development partnership. It is not comparable to those of other countries that the hon. Gentleman refers to.

Jane Stevenson: I know the Home Secretary has worked tirelessly with our European partners to try to stop vile people smugglers, but it is evident that more measures are urgently needed. Does she agree that a fair and just immigration and asylum policy should not rely on someone’s ability to pay, nor on whether they are young enough or fit enough to attempt to jump the queue by making the journey, and that to oppose any measure to stop these people smugglers is immoral?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see the scale of not just the global migration challenge but the level of criminality that has been associated with migration and illegal migration for decades. This is not a new phenomenon, as I have repeatedly said in the House many, many times. It is right that we absolutely go after the individuals who are responsible for this trade in people smuggling and stop these routes being viable. We cannot do this on our own. We have to work internationally with our partners in the EU, but other international partners as well, who want to step up and be part of the solution, and also to demonstrate to other countries around the world how we can resettle refugees in a good, proper way.

Meg Hillier: The permanent secretary at the Home Office concluded that he could not tell whether this was value for money, but on every number and every question of cost, the Home Secretary has failed to answer. Can she answer the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)? If this deters certain people from crossing, surely the people traffickers and smugglers will just load the dinghies up with women and children and make sure that they get their money somehow; it does not break the business model.

Priti Patel: I am sorry, but I want to dispute that point. It is our moral responsibility and duty not to just wring our hands and let the people-smugglers carry on trading in human misery. We have a responsibility to find solutions. It is disappointing, as I have repeatedly said, that the Opposition just sit on the sidelines carping and playing political games. The message to the British people is obviously that they just want uncontrolled immigration, they do not have a solution to this problem, and they are not prepared to work with the Government to stop this awful and evil trade of people smuggling.

Desmond Swayne: Has the Home Secretary a plan to prevent potential emigrants from absconding before we can get them to Rwanda?

Priti Patel: It is an important point. Of course, there is a lot of work that takes place with immigration enforcement and our operational teams. I should just add that for those who go through the asylum process, as claims are processed in the United Kingdom, issues such as absconding will have an impact on how their asylum claim is viewed and treated.

Sammy Wilson: I suspect that there are more asylum seekers housed in my constituency than in those of many who have been hectoring the Secretary of State this afternoon. I have heard their stories, and I know of the misery caused by people trafficking and of the desperation of those who hand over huge amounts of money and risk their lives to get into the United Kingdom. I therefore support the Secretary of State’s aim to wreck this evil trade. However, if after a lengthy procedure only a very small percentage of those processed will have left the country, will not the people smugglers still be able to argue, “It’s worth your while handing money over to us and risking your lives”?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of points, and made them incredibly well, about the human misery. The way in which people’s lives are put at risk is absolutely shocking and tragic. We want to stop that and break it, and we have to do so upstream. It is not good enough to wait for it to come to the shores of the United Kingdom or the coastline of France, because that is simply too late. That is why a whole array of work has been redoubled, working with intelligence and security partners upstream, and with different Governments, so that we can target, intercept and prosecute the gangs—not just in our country, but in other countries further upstream.

Henry Smith: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the new plan for immigration. Does she agree that there is nothing moral at all about a  system that perpetuates evil people-smuggling and puts a disproportionate burden on constituencies such as mine with regards to temporarily housing migrants?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I come back to two points about the issue of criminal gangs and people smuggling. This is not a new phenomenon; it is well established. We have to work not only with our international partners to break the model and have the right level of prosecutions domestically, but with our counterparts on intelligence, intelligence sharing and prosecutions outside the United Kingdom. Much of that is in the new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill, which Members on the Government side of the House support but Opposition Members do not. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to say that it is unfair that a handful of local authorities across the United Kingdom—in England and Wales—have stood up to provide housing accommodation and meet the needs of asylum seekers. That is a shameful reflection on many other local authorities, but that will now be remedied through the dispersal policy.

Janet Daby: I cannot accept that the Secretary of State believes that this policy is about protecting people, when we all know that it is utterly harmful. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were right to speak out against the Government’s unworkable plan to send asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda. The Government’s language criminalises vulnerable and traumatised people. The Archbishop of York was right to say that
“there is, in law, no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. It is the people who exploit them that we need to crack down on”.
This policy will also cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds, as has happened in Australia—is that not correct?

Priti Patel: I hear the hon. Lady’s case, but doing nothing is not an option when people are dying in the channel.

Edward Leigh: Following the previous question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the un-godly thing to do would be to do nothing and have a mass drowning of children in the channel this winter? Given that there is no end of people who want to cross the channel—however many we let in legally—is it not morally incumbent on those who oppose the policy to explain to the House how they will break the business model that once someone gets here, they are put in a hotel and never sent back?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is it not a moral requirement for the Home Secretary to explain why she will deport people who have arrived in this country, fleeing from desperate wars, famine and problems, prepared to risk all to cross a dangerous sea? Do they not deserve a sense of humanity from the Home Secretary, and not to be deported to incarceration in Rwanda?

Priti Patel: Again, I refer to the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman refers to our partners in Rwanda, which frankly I think is quite questionable. I remind  him and all Members of the House that France, alongside many other EU member states, is a safe country, and those travelling to the United Kingdom by making illegal and dangerous crossings that put their lives at risk, which is what we are trying to stop, could and should claim asylum in those countries first of all.

David Simmonds: I welcome much of what has been said today, but given that three quarters of child asylum seekers who come to the UK are boys aged 16 or 17, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that the age assessment process will be fully completed before they become eligible for removal from the United Kingdom?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his very sensible question. The House will be very well aware of the new age assessment work that will come forward under the Nationality and Borders Bill. This is an important piece of work that will help to ensure greater efficacy in the asylum system and support local authorities in determining the age of young people claiming asylum. For too long we have had some of the most egregious abuses, whereby young men have masqueraded as children and posed a safeguarding threat in our schools and social services. This is important and serious work that is taking place right now, and that will provide everyone with assurance about the age of those youngsters coming to our country and claiming asylum.

Stephen Doughty: The Home Secretary has been repeatedly asked this afternoon about the costs of this totally wrong policy. She said that she knew the costs involved in chartering aircraft from examples of our existing removals scheme, so can she tell us today what the cost will be of chartering one return flight to Rwanda and what the cost will be per person deported? Will she admit that this policy will cost far in excess of the £120 million that she said was just for development costs?

Priti Patel: First of all, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. As for the costs of removing individuals, for the record, it is worth reflecting upon the number of Opposition Members who frequently write to me to stop the removal of individuals with no legal basis to be in the country when we are chartering planes to remove failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders. Those costs are marginal compared with the long-term cost of housing people with no legal basis to be in this country and the wider cost to society, through our public services, healthcare, and housing and wider accommodation.

David Jones: May I commend my right hon. Friend on the proposals she has announced today, which offer the real prospect of breaking the business model of the people smugglers? Is it not the case that if anyone should be coming in for criticism, whether from this side of the Thames or the other, it should be those who are plying that disgusting trade and not those who are seeking to disrupt it?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this should be a moment of reflection for all colleagues, when it comes to those who thwart the removal of those with no legal basis to be in the country, on the  cost to the public purse and hard-pressed British taxpayers of not removing those individuals from the country in the first place.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Global Britain used to be a byword for bad trade deals; now it is an excuse to outsource our asylum system to Rwanda. Of course, we all stand, do we not, with the people of Ukraine in their fight to repel one dictator, but the Home Secretary is yoking the UK’s reputation to another. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have long asked for talks on a solution and on the establishment of safe routes for refugees. Did she engage with those two Governments, or does she only talk with dictators?

Priti Patel: If I may say so, I think the right hon. Lady will be very well aware of the engagement that has taken place in Government on our safe and legal route for Ukrainian nationals coming over to the United Kingdom, and those discussions have taken place across the devolved Administrations. I should also say for the record that the number of people who have come to our country through safe and legal routes stands at over 180,000 right now. Global Britain is doing more than its fair share in the world, and we are leading the world when it comes to safe and legal routes. Finally, I conclude by saying that, when it comes to safe and legal routes, it is those from the right hon. Lady’s party and every party on the Opposition Benches who have voted against the Nationality and Borders Bill, which actually puts safe and legal routes into statute.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend has highlighted the opening of a reception centre at the former RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse, located between Harrogate and York. Can she give us a bit more information about that—for example, when might it open, what is its capacity and how many local jobs will be created?

Priti Patel: I can confirm that the centre will be opening in the next six weeks. Work has been undertaken for several months on the development of the site, including capacity at the site and all the various measures required for the housing and accommodation for asylum seekers.

Chi Onwurah: Between 2015 and 2020, the number of asylum applications decided early stayed constant at about 30,000, but the proportion decided within the Secretary of State’s six-month target plummeted from 80% to 17%, despite doubling the number of caseworkers. Is it not the truth that her asylum processing system is broken—sending refugees to Rwanda will not fix that—and that she is using those fleeing from the worst atrocities of war as a shield for her incompetence?

Priti Patel: The asylum system is completely broken. That is the only fact that the hon. Lady is correct on. I am changing the asylum system, as per the Nationality and Borders Bill, which the hon. Lady has voted against and every Opposition Member has voted against. This includes turning around asylum decision making in a faster way with digitalisation of the process, and also making sure that the immigration courts and tribunals hear more cases in a faster time, which is a point I made  to a colleague in the House earlier. It is important that all these aspects of the reformed asylum system come together—

Chi Onwurah: indicated dissent.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but she shakes her head because, quite frankly, she is opposed to any reform or any controls on illegal migration and immigration.

Chris Clarkson: Ever since this policy was announced over the bank holiday weekend, we have heard some very strong rhetoric from the Opposition parties, leaning into some very lazy tropes about Africa and dripping with European exceptionalism. Can I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees with me in condemning that kind of language when talking about Rwanda, and can I advise her to keep on this course, because when I was talking to my constituents over the weekend, the one phrase everyone was using was “not before time”?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I refer to some of the undercurrents of the tone that has been used—not just in this House today, but more broadly—about our partnership with Rwanda. I could go so far as to say that some of this is quite xenophobic and, quite frankly, I think it is deeply egregious. Rwanda is one of the fastest growing countries in Africa, and we have an incredible partnership with it. Rwanda will be the host of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting later this year, and it is leading the way on the international stage on many international issues. I actually think this is pretty distasteful, and it says a great deal about Opposition Members’ understanding of global Britain and internationalism.

George Howarth: Recently my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) joined many others throughout this statement in asking for evidence that this policy could possibly work in some way or another. In each case the right hon. Lady has declined to provide that evidence, so will she put in the Library of the House of Commons all the internal Government advice she has received on the legality, workability and cost of the scheme? That way, at least we will be able to assess what the evidence-base is.

Priti Patel: I refer to the comments I made earlier on the legal and legislative basis, which was all put in place under the previous Labour Government. Indeed, this scheme and proposal were also looked at under the previous Labour Government, and had it been operational back then we might not be having this debate today as more people would be claiming asylum in safe countries in the EU and the people-smuggling gangs would have been broken up.

Andrew Bridgen: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and believe that the policy will work. Will my right hon. Friend explain what the successful implementation of her policy will look like on the ground, and in particular what impact she believes it will have on the number of vulnerable people willing to put their lives in the hands of ruthless people traffickers to gain illegal entry to our country?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One answer will be in the policy working and the removal of people to Rwanda. It will also be in overcoming many of the obstacles and hurdles, some of which colleagues have touched on this afternoon, including the legal and other barriers we face in removing those with no legal basis to be in the United Kingdom. The other point to make is that the long-term impact has to be to start disrupting the business model of the people smugglers by breaking up the evil people-smuggling gangs and going after them with more prosecutions, making sure the pilots of those small boats are prosecuted in the way I explained earlier in my statement. That not only takes a whole-of-Government approach, but also means we have to work with our international partners across Europe and further afield.

Alison Thewliss: My constituents want none of this despicable plan. As the chair of the all-party group on immigration detention I went to Napier barracks. It is not fit for purpose: it is cold, bleak and lacking in dignity and privacy. Vulnerable people struggle to get medical, social and legal support but at least we could visit. Can the Home Secretary tell me how facilities in Rwanda will be scrutinised, particularly given that Human Rights Watch says of Rwanda:
“Arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and unofficial detention facilities is commonplace”?

Priti Patel: I would be delighted to tell the hon. Lady how accommodation facilities in Kigali in Rwanda will be scrutinised. That is part of the monitoring work the Home Office and technical officials have established and is part of the memorandum of understanding—as if she has read the details in the MOU. Secondly, the hon. Lady’s characterisation of Napier is grossly wrong.

Alison Thewliss: I have been there.

Priti Patel: As we have as well. The hon. Lady will also be aware of the facilities that have been put in place—all the recreation, leisure, legal and accommodation facilities that UK taxpayers are paying for, the costs of which are going up and up and up.

Nicholas Fletcher: Does the Home Secretary agree that no one would spend thousands of pounds to go to one country and end up in another and that this policy will be a deterrent, which will save lives and save the taxpayer money?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is a voice of common sense on this, primarily because we want that deterrent effect—there is no doubt about that—and in addition we want to go after the individuals who have been profiteering for decades and decades from the human misery of people smuggling.

Afzal Khan: Given that many Rwandans seek and are granted asylum here in the UK, how can the Home Secretary possibly tell the House with a straight face that Rwanda is a safe country to send people seeking asylum to?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I made earlier on Rwanda: Rwanda is a safe country and I think his tone on Rwanda as a country and our  partnership is unjustifiable and insulting. I will leave my remarks there, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Craig Mackinlay: It seems to me that some actively celebrate the porosity of the French border. That weakness has seen 28,000 irregular crossings, a huge number of appalling deaths and a trade that is bigger than the drugs trade. Contrast that with my right hon. Friend’s new policy, which will normalise proper immigration rules, taking people to safe countries for proper processing in the right way. Can she understand my confusion that people are not celebrating this new policy?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and his comments. As I said earlier, I think the Opposition should just be honest about their position. They clearly stand for open borders; they do not believe in controlled immigration. We have a points-based immigration system that provides legal routes for people to come to the United Kingdom. They do not want the differentiation between legal and illegal routes, but I will tell you who does, Madam Deputy Speaker—the British people.

Rachael Maskell: When somebody is trafficked or smuggled into the UK, and then determines that they do not want to be deported to Rwanda, what steps will she take to uphold their rights under the Refugee Convention?

Priti Patel: As I said earlier, there is a difference between trafficking cases and those who have been smuggled through the people smuggling routes. When it comes to cases of trafficking, we have all the legal bases to provide support and to go after the traffickers for the abuses that they have committed. The hon. Lady will be very familiar with all of that. Not only that, I say again that every case is determined case by case. That means the right kind of legal support, both in this country and in Rwanda.

David Morris: People smuggling does not start at Calais; it can go through five different countries before people get to Calais. Then we have the abhorrence of people drowning in the Channel. I understand the concerns of the House about sending people to Rwanda, but we have one champion in the House who sadly is not in his place at this moment in time. When he was the shadow Secretary of State for International Development and became the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) had a lot to do with Rwanda and he has the utmost respect from their Government. Will my right hon. Friend utilise his talents and use him in some ambassadorial way to allay the fears of Members of this House?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes some very important points, particularly about the country of Rwanda. Those of us in this House who know Rwanda well—I put that in the context of some of the ignorance that has been shown today—and know about the incredible work of the Rwandan Government through difficult times more recently, know how they have become almost Africa’s voice on the international stage.

Chris Matheson: May I challenge this lazy and probably sexist assumption that all young men are economic migrants? Does the Home Secretary not understand that in conflict situations—especially civil wars, whether in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ethiopia or Sudan—one side will come to a town or village and either press gang all the young men to fight for them or kill them and then the other side will come and do exactly the same? These young men are not economic migrants but people trying to flee a war they want nothing to do with.

Priti Patel: That is exactly why we are proposing safe and legal routes, as we have done with Syria and Afghanistan. These are bespoke routes that help those fleeing persecution. There is an important point that the hon. Gentleman has made in there, which is also why our case-by-case approach and assessment when it comes to those seeking asylum is absolutely applied in the right kind of way. The new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill are trying to do exactly that by bringing efficacy to our asylum system to make sure that we can help those in genuine need.

Jerome Mayhew: The EU uses Rwanda for refugee settlement. The United Nations uses Rwanda for refugee settlement. Even the Labour Government legislated to use safe third countries to process asylum claims. Given this, does my right hon. Friend agree that exactly the same approach lies behind this partnership with Rwanda?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It goes without saying that it seems to be fine, depending on your political persuasion, to say it is fine for the EU, it is fine for the UN, but it is not fine for the British Government. That is simply not acceptable. This has worked in the past. I come back to the fundamental principle that doing nothing is not an option while people are drowning not just in the channel but in the Mediterranean. People are taking dangerous journeys, often through Libya, making difficult and dangerous crossings across the Mediterranean and then across the channel. That is what we want to stop and we have a moral duty to do everything we possibly can to break up that model.

Nia Griffith: We know that two-thirds of migrants arriving by dangerous routes have a legitimate claim for asylum. On the remainder, can the Home Secretary please tell us what new agreement she has struck with the top five countries of origin for economic migrants in respect of returning migrants, improving visa application processes and tackling people smuggling at source?

Priti Patel: Well, of course, tackling people smugglers at source is exactly what our country and Government are leading on right now. We are leading on that work with our intelligence and security partners, and through law enforcement co-operation. We are doing that through our EU near-neighbours such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, but also countries further upstream, including Italy and Greece. It is right that we do that. This is difficult, difficult work and we are supporting them. My final comments very much come back to the hon. Lady’s question, but also to points made by others.  Speeding up processes is exactly what the Nationality and Borders Bill is about: making sure we can speed up asylum claims and stop the merry-go-round of going to the courts and tribunal again and again and again, and ensuring we can bring efficacy to the asylum system.

Jack Brereton: I very much welcome measures that will offer a proper deterrent to those who are seeking to come to this country illegally. I also particularly welcome action to ensure that people are dispersed more fairly right across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for far too long areas like Stoke-on-Trent have taken far more than their fair share and that it is about time other parts of the country did their part?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to Stoke Council and to all parliamentary colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent who have made representations over a long period of time many, many times with great strength and feeling. The dispersal policy is important. I have touched on it already. It is a complete and utter shame that the nationalists have been howling about this policy, while at the same time only one local authority has actually supported the dispersal policy. In the principle of fairness and a sense of fairness across the country, and to British taxpayers, we must make sure that every local authority participates in the scheme.

Paul Blomfield: Can I try to get a clear answer to the question that others have asked? The Home Office factsheet on this proposal explains:
“Every person who comes to the UK illegally, or by dangerous or unnecessary methods…will be considered for relocation to Rwanda.”
The Home Secretary seemed to confirm that in her earlier comments. Will she confirm now that women and children who come to the UK through irregular routes fleeing conflict and repression will be eligible for transfer to Rwanda, and not just the adult men, as her Department briefed the media?

Priti Patel: I will repeat what I said earlier on. Decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and nobody will be removed if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.

Jonathan Gullis: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this fantastic policy which people overwhelmingly supported when they voted for Brexit in 2016 and when they overwhelmingly voted for the Conservative party in Stoke-on-Trent for the first time across the board? Does she agree with me that it is about time that other local authorities did their bit, particularly in Scotland, and that the north Islington wokerati are more than welcome to come to Stoke-on-Trent and explain why they oppose it? Perhaps they should send the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) to explain why.

Priti Patel: I think it is fair to say that my hon. Friend has made a very powerful and compelling case for the dispersal policy, but equally for why doing nothing is no longer an issue when it comes to reform of the asylum system and to dealing with how we remove individuals  with no legal basis to be in the UK, particularly those who have travelled to the United Kingdom illegally through dangerous crossings from safe European countries.

Florence Eshalomi: I agree with the right hon. Member that our asylum system is broken and that the £5 million cost is too much. This includes the people who are staying in hotels in my constituency on South Lambeth Road—the many people I am trying to help with their asylum claims. So many people in Vauxhall have contacted me because they are worried about this policy. The FCDO website states that Rwanda is not a safe place and that it is frowned on for people to be LGBT. There are many LGBT people who claim asylum. Can the Home Secretary guarantee that those people will still be safe and not sent to a country where they could be at harm?

Priti Patel: Absolutely—we can—and that was part of our negotiation with the Rwandan Government. It has been made very clear in the legal agreement that we have between us.

Rob Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crucial point is that the partnership with Rwanda is for people attempting to come to the UK illegally? Has she been struck, as I have, that despite the complaints, the carping and sometimes the caterwauling from Opposition Members, when it comes to proposing an alternative—a thought-through, responsible plan—their silence is deafening?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will repeat what I said earlier: this is the same party opposite that writes letters to me frequently to stop us removing people with no legal basis to be in the UK, including many foreign national offenders—rapists, murderers, paedophiles, you name it—along with asylum seekers. That speaks volumes —it really does—when it comes to protecting our country and protecting British citizens.

Munira Wilson: Like me, the Home Secretary is the daughter of east African Indian immigrants whose family sought sanctuary and a better life in this country, so does she not feel, as I do, a personal moral responsibility to extend the generosity that was shown by the British Government to our communities in the ’60s and ’70s by providing further safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees, rather than shipping them off to Rwanda?

Priti Patel: When it comes to safe and legal routes, I hope that the hon. Lady will vote with the Government on the Nationality and Borders Bill, because that is exactly what this Government are proposing. As I said, 180,000 people have been brought to the United Kingdom under safe and legal routes and this Government are committed to doing much, much more.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That concludes this statement. I am sorry that some Members did not get in, but I am sure that we have a list of names so that we may look to them in future.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Boris Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s response to events at home and abroad during the Easter recess.
I will come to Ukraine in a moment, since I have just left a virtual meeting with President Biden, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz and eight other world leaders, but let me begin in all humility by saying that on 12 April, I received a fixed penalty notice relating to an event in Downing Street on 19 June 2020. I paid the fine immediately and I offered the British people a full apology, and I take this opportunity, on the first available sitting day, to repeat my wholehearted apology to the House. As soon as I received the notice, I acknowledged the hurt and the anger, and I said that people had a right to expect better of their Prime Minister, and I repeat that again in the House now.
Let me also say—not by way of mitigation or excuse, but purely because it explains my previous words in this House—that it did not occur to me, then or subsequently, that a gathering in the Cabinet Room just before a vital meeting on covid strategy could amount to a breach of the rules. I repeat: that was my mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly. I respect the outcome of the police’s investigation, which is still under way. I can only say that I will respect their decision making and always take the appropriate steps. As the House will know, I have already taken significant steps to change the way things work in No. 10.
It is precisely because I know that so many people are angry and disappointed that I feel an even greater sense of obligation to deliver on the priorities of the British people and to respond in the best traditions of our country to Putin’s barbaric onslaught against Ukraine. Our Ukrainian friends are fighting for the life of their nation, and they achieved the greatest feat of arms of the 21st century by repelling the Russian assault on Kyiv. The whole House will share my admiration for their heroism and courage.
Putin arrogantly assumed that he would capture Kyiv in a matter of days, and now the blackened carcases of his tanks and heavy armour litter the approaches to the capital on both banks of the Dnieper and are smouldering monuments to his failure. Having pulverised the invader’s armoured spearheads, the Ukrainians then counter-attacked. By 6 April, Putin had been compelled to withdraw his forces from the entire Kyiv region. Britain and our allies supplied some of the weaponry, but it was Ukrainian valour and sacrifice that saved their capital.
I travelled to Kyiv myself on 9 April—the first G7 leader to visit since the invasion—and I spent four hours with President Volodymyr Zelensky, the indomitable leader of a nation fighting for survival, who gives the roar of a lion-hearted people. I assured him of the implacable resolve of the United Kingdom, shared across this House, to join with our allies and give his brave people the weapons that they need to defend themselves. When the President and I went for an impromptu walk through central Kyiv, we happened upon a man who immediately expressed his love for Britain and the British people. He was generous enough to say—quite unprompted, I should reassure the House—“I will tell my children and grandchildren they must always remember that Britain helped us.”
But the urgency is even greater now because Putin has regrouped his forces and launched a new offensive in the Donbas. We knew that this danger would come. When I welcomed President Duda of Poland to Downing Street on 7 April and Chancellor Scholz the following day, we discussed exactly how we could provide the arms that Ukraine would desperately need to counter Putin’s next onslaught. On 12 April, I spoke to President Biden to brief him on my visit to Kyiv and how we will intensify our support for President Zelensky. I proposed that our long-term goal must be to strengthen and fortify Ukraine to the point where Russia will never dare to invade again.
Just as our foreign policy must look to the long term, the same is true of this Government’s domestic priorities. As we face the economic aftershocks of covid and the consequences of Russian aggression, that is above all about tackling the impact on British energy prices, on consumers and on family bills. That is why we are spending over £9 billion to help families struggling with their bills and we are helping families to insulate their homes and reduce costs. To end our dependence on Putin’s oil and gas and to ensure that energy is cheaper in the long term, we published on 7 April a new strategy to make British energy greener, more affordable and more secure. We will massively expand offshore wind and—in the country that split the atom—we will build a new reactor not every decade, but every year.
This Government are joining with our allies to face down Putin’s aggression abroad while addressing the toughest problems at home, helping millions of families with the cost of living, making our streets safer and funding the NHS to clear the covid backlog. My job is to work every day to make the British people safer, more secure and more prosperous, and that is what I will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.

Keir Starmer: What a joke!
Even now, as the latest mealy-mouthed apology stumbles out of one side of the Prime Minister’s mouth, a new set of deflections and distortions pours from the other. But the damage is already done. The public have made up their minds. They do not believe a word that the Prime Minister says. They know what he is.
As ever with this Prime Minister, those close to him find themselves ruined and the institutions that he vows to protect damaged: good Ministers forced to walk away from public service; the Chancellor’s career up in flames; the leader of the Scottish Conservatives rendered pathetic. Let me say to all those unfamiliar with this Prime Minister’s career that this is not some fixable glitch in the system; it is the whole point. It is what he does. It is who he is. He knows he is dishonest and incapable of changing, so he drags everybody else down with him. [Interruption.] The more people debase themselves, parroting—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I cannot hear what is being said because there is so much noise. [Interruption.] Mr Fabricant, I am all right.

Hon. Members:: Withdraw!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. What I will say is that I think the Leader of the Opposition used the word “dishonest”, and I do not consider that appropriate. [Hon. Members:  “Breaking the rules!”] We do not want to talk about breaking rules, do we? I do not think this is a good time to discuss that.
I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition withdraws that word and works around it, he will be able—given the knowledge he has gained over many, many years—to use appropriate words that are in keeping with the good, temperate language of this House.

Keir Starmer: I respect that ruling from the Chair, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows what he is. As I was saying, he drags everyone else down with him. The more people debase themselves, parroting his absurd defences, the more the public will believe that all politicians are the same, all as bad as each other—and that suits this Prime Minister just fine.
Some Conservative Members seem oblivious to the Prime Minister’s game. Some know what he is up to but are too weak to act, while others are gleefully playing the part that the Prime Minister cast for them. A Minister said on the radio this morning, “It is the same as a speeding ticket.” No, it is not. No one has ever broken down in tears because they could not drive faster than 20 miles an hour outside a school. Do not insult the public with this nonsense!
As it happens, however, the last Minister who got a speeding ticket, and then lied about it, ended up in prison. I know, because I prosecuted him.
Last week, we were treated to a grotesque spectacle: one of the Prime Minister’s loyal supporters accusing teachers and nurses of drinking in the staff room during lockdown. Conservative Members can associate themselves with that if they want, but those of us who take pride in our NHS workers, our teachers, and every other key worker who got us through those dark days will never forget their contempt.
Plenty of people did not agree with every rule that the Prime Minister wrote, but they followed them none the less, because in this country we respect others. We put the greater good above narrow self-interest, and we understand that the rules apply to all of us. This morning I spoke to John Robinson, a constituent of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and I want to tell the House his story.
When his wife died of covid, John and his family obeyed the Prime Minister’s rules. He did not see her in hospital; he did not hold her hand as she died. Their daughters and grandchildren drove 100 miles up the motorway, clutching a letter from the funeral director in case they were questioned by the police. They did not have a service in church, and John’s son-in-law stayed away because he would have been the forbidden seventh mourner. Does the Prime Minister not realise that John would have given the world to hold his dying wife’s hand, even if it was just for nine minutes? But he did not, because he followed the Prime Minister’s rules—rules that we now know the Prime Minister blithely, repeatedly and deliberately ignored. After months of insulting excuses, today’s half-hearted apology will never be enough for John Robinson. If the Prime Minister had any respect for John, and the millions like him who sacrificed everything to follow the rules, he would resign. But he will not, because he does not respect John, and he does not respect the sacrifice of the British public. He is a man without shame.
Looking past the hon. Member for Lichfield and the nodding dogs in the Cabinet, there are many decent hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who do respect John Robinson and do respect the British public. They know the damage that the Prime Minister is doing; they know that things cannot go on as they are; and they know that it is their responsibility to bring an end to this shameful chapter. Today I urge them once again not to follow in the slipstream of an out-of-touch, out-of-control Prime Minister. I urge them to put their conscience, their country and John Robinson first; to remove the Prime Minister from office; to bring decency, honesty and integrity back into our politics; and to stop the denigration of everything that this country stands for.

Boris Johnson: I apologise once again, profusely, to John Robinson, to all of those who lost loved ones, and particularly to those who suffered during the pandemic. In my statement, I have tried to explain why I spoke to the House as I did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has chosen to respond with a series of personal attacks on me, and I understand why he does that. I understand that, but I think it would have been a good thing if, in the course of his remarks, he had addressed some of the issues that I mentioned, not least the crisis in Ukraine, with the impact that that is having on the livelihoods of everybody in this country. In order to address that, the Government will get on with our job, which is to focus on the needs of the British people.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about nodding dogs. I remind the House that there was a certain nodding dog, who sat nodding in the previous Labour shadow Cabinet, who would happily have installed the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and made a disastrous mistake for the security of our country at a very difficult time. This Government will get on with the difficult job of taking us through the aftershocks of the covid pandemic, and of leading not just this country but the world in our response to the violence that we are seeing in Ukraine. I renew my apologies. I renew my apologies to John Robinson and to families up and down the land, but I think the best thing that we can do now for this country, as politicians, is not to indulge in personal abuse of the kind we have heard, but to get on with our jobs.

Bill Cash: I have heard the remarks of both my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that it is crystal clear that a fixed penalty notice, such as was applied in his case, is a civil penalty fine, which, if paid within 28 days, eliminates the possibility of future prosecution in the criminal courts and, furthermore, can be paid without any admission of guilt. The judgment in a recent Court of Appeal criminal case said that if the payment is made within 28 days, a fixed penalty notice is held not to be a conviction, as the defendant is
“not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
That is the perspective on this case.

Boris Johnson: I make it absolutely clear that in no way do I minimise the importance of this fine. I am heartily sorry for my mistake, and I accept completely the decision of the police.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: Let us remind ourselves that, on 8 December 2021, the Prime Minister denied that any parties happened at No. 10 Downing Street—the very same parties that the police have now fined him for attending. People know by now that the rules of this House prevent me from saying that he deliberately and wilfully misled the House, but maybe today that matters little, because the public have already made up their mind.
YouGov polling shows that 75% of the British public, and 82% of people in Scotland, have made up their mind on the Prime Minister. The public know the difference between the truth and lying, and they know that the Prime Minister is apologising for one reason, and one reason only, and it is the only reason he ever apologises: because he has been caught. After months of denials, his excuses have finally run out of road, and so must his time in office. The Prime Minister has broken the very laws he wrote. His trying to argue that he did not know that he had broken his own laws would be laughable if it were not so serious. Prime Minister, you cannot hide behind advisers. He knows, we know and the dogs in the street know that the Prime Minister has broken the law. This is the first Prime Minister to be officially found to have broken the law in office—a lawbreaking Prime Minister. Just dwell on that: a Prime Minister who has broken the law and who remains under investigation for additional lawbreaking—not just a lawbreaker but a serial offender. If he has any decency, any dignity, he would not just apologise but resign.
The scale and the seriousness of the issues we all now face demand effective leadership from a Prime Minister who can be trusted. The Tory cost of living crisis and the war crimes being inflicted on the Ukrainian people need our full focus. In a time of crisis, the very least the public deserve is a Prime Minister they can trust to tell the truth. For this Prime Minister, that trust is broken and can never be fixed. The truth is that a majority of people across these islands will never against trust a single word he says.
The questions today are not so much for a Prime Minister desperately clinging on to power. The real question is for Tory Back Benchers: will they finally grow a spine and remove this person from office? Or is the Tory strategy about standing behind a Prime Minister whom the public cannot trust with the truth?

Boris Johnson: I direct the right hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier, when I apologised profusely for my mistake and for what I got wrong. I repeat that.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether this Government are capable of providing effective leadership, during the current crisis, in standing up to Russia, and I remind him that it is still the policy of the Scottish National party to dispense with this country’s independent nuclear deterrent at a particularly crucial time. I do not think that is what this country needs right now.

John Whittingdale: Many of my constituents are angry about breaches that happened two years ago, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of that and his apology, but does he agree that we face the gravest crisis in our global security for a long time, and it is essential that we remain focused on  beating Putin and stopping the aggression against Ukraine? Can he say what additional measures we can take for Ukraine, following his discussion with President Biden and others, to ensure that Putin’s aggression is not allowed to succeed?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I repeat my apology and my contrition, but I want to say that the war in Ukraine is at a very perilous stage, and it is vital that we do not allow Putin to gain momentum in the Donbas, as he well could, and in the east. That is why we are stepping up our supply of military hardware, of a kind that I think the Ukrainians particularly need now. This will become an artillery conflict, and they need support with more artillery. That is what we will be giving them, in addition to many other forms of support.

Margaret Hodge: I see that the Prime Minister is anxious to move on to other issues, but the question is: can he do that? Let me take one example. Can he explain to me, the House and the country how he can credibly justify calling for the resignation of the boss of P&O Ferries when he faced allegations that he broke the law, while refusing to resign when he himself is guilty of actually the breaking the law that he set?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Lady very much, and I think that what P&O Ferries did was entirely wrong, as I have told the House before. I made a serious mistake, and I apologise for it very sincerely.

Mark Harper: I strongly support the Government’s actions in standing up to Putin’s aggression, and helping Ukraine defend itself and our values. It is exactly at times such as this that our country needs a Prime Minister who exemplifies those values. I regret to say that we have a Prime Minister who broke the laws that he told the country it had to follow, who has not been straightforward about it, and who is now going to ask the decent men and women on the Conservative Benches to defend what I think is indefensible. I am very sorry to have to say this, but I no longer think he is worthy of the great office he holds.

Boris Johnson: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I know the care and sincerity with which he weighs his words, and I bitterly regret what has happened and the event in Downing Street, as I have said, but I do believe it is the job of this Government to get on with the priorities of the British people, and that is what we are going to do.

Edward Davey: A poll over the weekend asked 2,000 people what they think of the Prime Minister. The most common word they used, by far, was “liar”. Does the Prime Minister understand how profoundly damaging it is to our great country to have a Government led by a man the public no longer trust and no longer have confidence in? If the Prime Minister will not resign, will he at least give Conservative MPs a free vote on Thursday, so that they can decide for themselves whether the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament, or was just so incompetent that he did not even understand his own laws?

Boris Johnson: I repeat what I have said earlier. I disagree profoundly with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but I repeat my apology to the House and to the country.

Jake Berry: The people of Rossendale and Darwen will have weighed the words of the Prime Minister carefully today and will, like me, feel that it is a contrite and wholehearted apology. They will also be looking at the action of the Prime Minister in Ukraine. Will he consider putting Britain at the forefront of a new Marshall plan to rebuild Ukraine after Putin has been defeated, and fund this, in part, from the assets that the British state has confiscated from Russian oligarchs?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent suggestion, which is one that the UK Government are already pursuing. In my conversations with President Zelensky, we discussed exactly how the supporters and friends of Ukraine around the world can help to rebuild that beautiful country when the conflict is over.

Karl Turner: We have always known that the Prime Minister was only ever sorry because he was caught bang to rights. This latest spin about the Met having it wrong is designed to bully the Met and provide cover to his Back Benchers who do not have the bottle to sack him, but the country has already concluded that he is either a liar or an idiot—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I said we want temperate language. We have the motion on Thursday. That is a different matter. For today, we are not using language like that.

Karl Turner: I withdraw the word “liar”, Mr Speaker, but the electorate will have already decided. Everybody knows that the Prime Minister is a lawbreaker. If the Met has got the wrong end of the stick, why does he not challenge the penalties before the criminal courts and have his day in court?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I repeat what I said in my statement earlier, which is that I fully respect the decision of the police.

Julian Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend have the power to authorise Sue Gray to publish her report in full? If so, will he use that power to put an end to this matter, so that we do not get diverted —as we are being—from such crucial questions as the supply of armaments to Ukrainian democrats?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much, but I think it very important that the Met should conclude its investigation before Sue Gray’s final report.

Anna McMorrin: Today marks the Prime Minister’s 1,000th day in office, but it takes a particular type of Prime Minister to rack up as many catastrophic failures, scandals and U-turns as days on the job—from the Tory-made cost of living crisis to dodgy covid contracts for his cronies, unlawfully proroguing  Parliament and now breaking the law. Enough is enough. So will the Prime Minister confirm whether this 1,000th day will be his last?

Boris Johnson: I might add to the hon. Lady’s list fixing social care when Labour did absolutely nothing, rolling out the fastest vaccine programme anywhere in Europe and thereby accomplishing the fastest economic growth in the G7, and leading the world in standing up to Putin.

Tom Hunt: I appreciate the Prime Minister coming here today and taking full responsibility and apologising. It is clear that President Zelensky has repeatedly identified the Prime Minister as Ukraine’s greatest ally. He has also been identified, I think, by President Putin as enemy No. 1. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is not a bad accolade to have? Does he also agree that months of psychodrama in this place will play into the hands of the latter, not the former?

Boris Johnson: It is very important that the people in this country should understand that, although the country is faced with massive issues that we have to deal with, in the aftershocks of covid and the war in Ukraine, I in no way minimise the importance of the fine I have received and I apologise wholeheartedly.

Mick Whitley: People across the House will agree that the situation in Ukraine is serious, and there is no doubt that we fully support what we are trying to do. However, setting that aside for a minute, the Prime Minister stands before us today as the first resident of No. 10 to be found guilty of breaking the law while serving in public office. While he has finally apologised today, it has been accompanied by the absurd caveat that the man who set the rules could not understand them. Will the Prime Minister concede that remaining in office deals a grievous blow to the rule of law in this country and, for the first time in his career, will he put the national interest before his personal ambition and resign?

Boris Johnson: I repeat my apology and direct the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier. The people of this country need us to focus on their issues and their priorities, and that is what the Government are going to do.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I thank the Prime Minister for his update on the energy security strategy, in particular the support offered for steel. It is the latest in a long line of support that he has brought forward, and it also sets out plans for wind, solar and nuclear. Does he agree that the best possible place to make the steel needed for those projects is right here in the UK?

Boris Johnson: Yes, my hon. Friend is completely right. That is why our energy security strategy is vital not just for consumers, but for British industry.

Richard Burgon: A new poll shows that three quarters of the public think the Prime Minister deliberately lied about breaking lockdown rules, yet on  Thursday the Prime Minister will order his MPs to stop his lawbreaking ever coming before the Privileges Committee. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why not do the straightforward thing and refer himself to the Privileges Committee? What is he scared of?

Boris Johnson: The House will decide.

Peter Bone: I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity to update us on the situation. Following your announcement, Mr Speaker, this House will have to decide on Thursday whether to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee. There is only one issue—whether the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House—so I ask him: did you deliberately mislead the House at the Dispatch Box?

Boris Johnson: No.

Sammy Wilson: Prime Minister, millions of angry people across the United Kingdom will remain angry, even after today’s apology, because of what they have gone through, but any objective listener will recognise that, for whatever reason, the apology was genuine. And I remind the Prime Minister that hundreds of thousands of Unionists in Northern Ireland are angry about other things as well. However, it is important to focus on the future, rather than the past.
The Prime Minister said that he discussed the situation in Ukraine with world leaders today. That situation is becoming desperate. What discussions has he had about giving Ukrainian forces the appropriate weaponry so that they can drive back the Russians, liberate their country and avoid all the consequences for our economy, oil, and food for the rest of the world?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is in continual discussion with the Ukrainians about what we can do to help them to defend themselves. A lot has gone there, a lot more will be going, and I pay tribute to a particular Northern Ireland business—Short Brothers, which is now Thales—that has been absolutely indispensable in helping the Ukrainians against Russian armour.

John Baron: The Government and the British people have provided extensive support to Ukrainian refugees, but around 200 British Council contractors remain in Afghanistan, many of whom are fleeing the Taliban. I am awaiting a meeting with the Refugees Minister that was promised back in November, so will the Prime Minister use his good offices to speed that meeting along?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. Those 200 contractors for the British Council should, I believe, automatically be eligible and certainly should be able to come under the scheme we have put in place, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting he wants.

Chris Bryant: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Russia, I found it difficult this Easter to have any faith, seeing the barbarity meted out to the people of Ukraine: women tortured and raped, their children tortured and raped, and their menfolk, in  many cases, with hands tied and then shot in the back of the head. All those things we know to be war crimes, but many of the worst atrocities are being committed by sociopaths working as mercenaries—paid for by the Russian Government and the Russian state, but none the less working as mercenaries. The UK still is not a signatory to the convention on mercenaries. Is it not time we put a stop to this terrible barbarity, not just in Ukraine, but in other places in the world where mercenaries from the Wagner Group operate with sociopathic intent?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I will study his proposal on mercenaries. He has been right for a long time on Russia, and he has been vindicated.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have heard the fulsome apology by the Prime Minister, but he is taking a lead in Ukraine and I suggest he needs to keep giving Ukraine defensive weapons so that we can eventually drag President Putin and the Russian Federation to a peace agreement. Will he then lead the world in gaining reparations so that the great country of Ukraine can be rebuilt?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his staunch position on Ukraine. He is completely right. I am afraid there is now no easy way to find a diplomatic or negotiated solution; I know the House would have preferred that, but it will be difficult to construct an off-ramp for Vladimir Putin. We are now in a logic where we must simply do everything we can collectively to ensure that Vladimir Putin fails, and fails comprehensively, in Ukraine.

Mohammad Yasin: The majority of my constituents are “sickened and furious” that the Prime Minister broke the laws that they followed, putting their lives on hold, missing out on big life events and even losing the chance to say goodbye to loved ones, in order to protect the NHS and save lives. Does the Prime Minister agree with my constituent Robert, who believes that lawbreakers should not be lawmakers?

Boris Johnson: I apologise profusely again, particularly to all those who lost loved ones. I know how painful it has been. However, I repeat what I have said: I believe the job of the Government now is to get on with delivering on the priorities of the country at a difficult time.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: I know the Prime Minister has offered his wholehearted apology for the fixed penalty notice he received, which I welcome, but I encourage him not to take any lectures from the Labour party, bearing in mind the number of FPNs their previous Cabinet received—and yes, speed does kill—or, on this occasion, the FPNs that the Labour party and the SNP did not receive. Does he agree that everybody should be equal under the law?

Boris Johnson: Of course I agree with that, but let us be frank: the issue here today is what I did and what I got wrong, and I renew my apologies.

Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister accepted the Health Secretary’s resignation for breaking covid guidance, not covid laws. The Prime Minister  then accepted Allegra Stratton’s resignation for joking that the parties that were so frequent in Downing Street were a business event. He is now using her joke as his defence. Why is he holding himself to lower standards than the people whose resignations he accepted?

Boris Johnson: All I can say is that I apologise for what I got wrong. I have explained to the House why I spoke in the House as I did, and what I want to do is get on with the job of the Government in taking this country forward. That is what we are going to do.

Steven Baker: I dare say that every Member of this House can bring to mind their own John Robinson, perhaps several. Though you would not know it, I also think that most Members of this House know that justice and mercy and humility also go hand in hand—a fact known by many who watch these proceedings too. In asking us to forgive him on behalf of all those John Robinsons we represent, my right hon. Friend could not have made a more humble apology. But justice leading into mercy relies on a very old-fashioned concept, and that is repentance. What assurance can he give us that nothing of this kind will ever happen again?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I am heartily sorry, as I have said. I wish it had not happened and I wish that things had been totally different. What I have already done, as the House will know, is take steps to change the way we do things in No. 10. But that, in itself, is not enough. I accept full responsibility myself for my actions.

Afzal Khan: The Prime Minister’s supposed apology to the nation is pathetic. Last year he told bereaved families in Downing Street that he had done everything possible to save their loved ones. Now he has been fined for breaking his own laws, illustrating just how soft the Tories have become on crime. Does he accept that his words ring hollow for those of us who have lost loved ones?

Boris Johnson: I repeat what I have said. I know that the hon. Gentleman has experienced bereavement during the pandemic and I am sorry for his loss. I repeat my apologies for what happened in No. 10.

Michael Fabricant: I was desperately sad to hear about my constituent John Robinson. My own best friend’s mother died in hospital and he was not able to see her. I recall, of course, that the Prime Minister’s mother also died during the covid crisis. We have all suffered from these heart-wrenching tragedies and none of us should forget it. I want to ask a quick question regarding Ukraine. The Prime Minister has announced that he is going to provide new, modern, mobile ground-to-air missile systems. How will we be able to train the Ukrainians during this war situation so that they can be put into use before it is too late?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend and repeat my condolences to his friend. On the Starstreak and other systems that we are using—that we are supplying to Ukraine—the Ukrainians are now being trained, as he can imagine, outside the immediate theatre of conflict.

Marie Rimmer: The Prime Minister genuinely does not seem to understand how he got his fine or what he did to break the law. He wrote, “What an utter nonsense.” If a man is so incompetent that he cannot understand his own rules, is he also a man who cannot understand the public’s challenges given the pace and scale of the soaring cost of living?

Boris Johnson: That is exactly why the Government are focused on those issues. That is what we need to get on with. It is about dealing with the aftershocks of covid, and the impact of the Ukrainian crisis on fuel prices and on inflation. That is where we are focused 100%.

Edward Leigh: Yes, someone needs to have the courage to get rid of the leader, but it is the leader who is sitting in the Kremlin and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Maybe I only speak for myself, and I say it in all humility, but I am not going to give the satisfaction to that death’s head tyrant of removing a British Prime Minister who has given an apology, and who was working night and day to save thousands of lives and went downstairs to thank his staff who were doing the same job. He has apologised: let us show some compassion.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for what he has said. I just want to say one important thing: it is very important in this Ukrainian crisis that we do not make it an objective to remove the Russian leader or to change politics in Russia. This is about protecting the people of Ukraine, which is what we are doing. Putin will try to frame it as a struggle between him and the west, but we cannot accept that. This is about his brutal attack on the people of Ukraine.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Here we are again, talking about the Prime Minister and his misdemeanours. It is frustrating for all of us on both sides of the House that we still have to be here, but the Prime Minister has led us on this merry dance—nobody else. After all the apologies today, Prime Minister, please resign, because we have had enough. The country deserves better.

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must respectfully direct her to what I have already said.

Mark Pritchard: May I recognise the Prime Minister’s contrition, humility and apology before the House today? As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, I thank him for his leadership on Ukraine and pass on the cross-party thanks of people from the Rada, the Parliament in Ukraine, for his leadership in this conflict. I encourage him to steel the resolve and resilience of our EU partners and NATO members that think that if Putin gains eastern and southern Ukraine, he will stop there. Is it not the case that he would be reinvigorated and come back for Kyiv, and perhaps other NATO allies, on another day?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his clarity of thought and his own leadership on Ukraine. I am afraid he is entirely right to say that it is all too possible that Putin will acquire fresh momentum in the east, and I am afraid we could see a resurgence of Russian attacks.

Joanna Cherry: It is quite difficult to follow the Prime Minister’s excuses, but I think what he is saying today is that he did not think he was breaking any covid rules because the gathering in respect of which he was fined was covered by a workplace exemption. If that is correct, why did he pay the fixed penalty notice fine? Why did he not refuse to do so and set out his defence in court? I suggest that he did not do so because he was afraid of his track record to date before the courts of both this jurisdiction and my own in Scotland. Judges and juries, like our constituents, tend to have a pretty good handle on issues of credibility and reliability, and that is why the Prime Minister did not take his chances with the court. Is that not correct?

Boris Johnson: I have explained that I believed that the event was in conformity with the rules. That has turned out not to be true. I humbly and sincerely accept that.

Robert Halfon: I thank the Prime Minister for what he has said in the House today, which I think will mean something to my constituents in Harlow. He mentioned that one of the great challenges that the Government are facing is the cost of living. Could he build on the work of the Chancellor in the spring statement and take further measures to cut the cost of living, perhaps either by getting rid of the green levies that account for 25% of our energy bills or by at least introducing a downwards escalator so that when the international energy price goes high, the green levies would be reduced?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and I know that he has campaigned assiduously for his constituents and the whole country to reduce the burden, particularly of fuel costs. I know that he will have been pleased by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s decision to cut 5p off fuel duty—a record cut—and we will do more as soon as we can to help people with the cost of living.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who have known him for a long time know that he has spent his life apologising humbly? Those of us who know him do not dislike or hate him, but we are waiting for signs that he is mending his ways and changing how he operates. If he thinks that deflecting on to some of the good work that he has done in Ukraine will balance what he has said to the House, may I remind him—he has key links with Washington, as do I—that the view in Washington, Berlin and Paris is that his behaviour here has undermined his status and credibility worldwide?

Boris Johnson: I in no way wish to deflect from the gravity of the fine that I have received. I want to stress again the apology, but I simply must disagree very profoundly with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

David Morris: I have heard the Prime Minister apologise countless times in the Chamber today. I am man enough to accept that. This is about a matter of trust. I trusted the Prime Minister to see us through Brexit, and he did. I trusted him to see us through the covid epidemic—bear in mind that he nearly died of it himself—and he did. And do you know something else? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have to say that things have to go through the Chair, not to the SNP.

David Morris: I totally agree, Mr Speaker. But do you know something else? Most importantly, this Prime Minister is leading the world against Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, and the G7 leaders all respect him for that. And more to the point, so does President Biden. Prime Minister, will you please carry on leading this country?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed. The answer to his question is yes, I will. But that in no way means that I wish to mitigate the offence of which I have been found guilty or to undermine the importance of my apology.

Alex Cunningham: My constituent Jason Green wrote to me today to tell me how his wife lost her mother suddenly last year but could not travel to be with her father, who himself died three days later, because they were following the law. They did not get to the funerals either, because they were abiding by the law. Jason does not forgive the Prime Minister. He says that the apologies are too late and that the Prime Minister should resign. What does the Prime Minister have to say to Jason and his family?

Boris Johnson: I apologise again—not just to Jason, but to the families of all those who lost loved ones during covid. I repeat what I told the House earlier.

Alun Cairns: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the way in which he made it. President Zelensky said yesterday that the conflict in Ukraine has moved to the second phase. We all recognise that the balance between offensive and defensive weapons is very fine. As the conflict continues to develop, will my right hon. Friend continue to review where that line stands?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. I do not think any NATO country, any western country, wants to see its forces or our own weaponry, troops and personnel directly engaged with Russia, but it is wholly legitimate and morally right to give the Ukrainians the equipment with which to protect themselves.

Jess Phillips: The Prime Minister has come here today and, in some respects, I would have very much welcomed an entire statement about what has been happening in Ukraine. It feels a bit like he seeks cover, which is shameful. The truth of the matter is that, on the cost of living crisis and all the issues that we face both domestically and in foreign affairs, the fundamental issue of whether people can trust our politics matters. If Conservative Members do not ask the Prime Minister to bear the rigour of the things that are put in place to ensure that leaders cannot mislead this House—if they do not walk through the Lobby to do that—they will set a dangerous precedent. So, through you, Mr Speaker, I speak to them rather than to the Prime Minister. But I ask the Prime Minister: should I look forward to a similar statement after the next fine? And, to stretch the metaphor, after three speeding fines, one has one’s driving licence removed, so at what point in his fine history will he see sense?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member very much and want to repeat what I have said already: I apologise for the fine I have received. I cannot comment about any hypothetical situations.

Robin Millar: I know that many in Aberconwy have written to me about their upset at events, but I know too that many in Aberconwy will have heard the Prime Minister’s apology today and will welcome it. I welcome it; indeed, perhaps we all have the hope that there is forgiveness in our future and not just punishment for our past. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister talked about his obligations, so will he please update the House on his commitment to strengthening the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and thank him for all the work that he does to protect and support the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As he knows, it is under a lot of pressure, caused by the Northern Irish protocol, which I believe is undermining the balance of the Good Friday agreement, and we will have to sort it out.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The Prime Minister debases himself, he debases his office, he debases his Government and he debases those who seek to defend him. He is a millstone around his party’s neck. The Welsh Conservatives’ 18-page local election manifesto makes zero reference to the Prime Minister. It appears that they, like a number of his own Back Benchers, do not want to be associated with him. Can he explain why?

Boris Johnson: I think what they probably want to have in Wales is better government. I would think they are campaigning for the investment in the NHS that I am afraid both Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have failed to deliver.

Natalie Elphicke: I thank the Prime Minister for his fulsome apology today. Given that, does he agree that the priority for the House and the Government must be the very real challenges facing our country, particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living pressures caused by covid and worsened by Russia’s war on Ukraine? Coming from Poland, having helped with Ukrainian child refugees last week, I pass on, if I may, the widespread respect and admiration in which his leadership on Ukraine is held.

Boris Johnson: May I thank my hon. Friend very much for what she has been doing to help refugees in Poland? We talked about it the other day. I know that many other Members across the House are doing the same, and I thank them all.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I share the Prime Minister’s thoughts on Ukraine. Over Easter, my constituents collected the morning-after pill to send to Ukraine for women who are being raped by Russian forces. But their disgust, and their admiration for Britain’s role, does not dampen their anger at the Prime Minister’s action. It was not just the crime, but the lie, the obfuscation and the fake apologies—

Lindsay Hoyle: rose—

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: —that got—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. No, I decide; I am sorry, you cannot take my job. You are the Back Bencher, I am in the Chair. We do not use the word “lie”. I explained that earlier and I stand by it, so I am sure you will withdraw it immediately.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: The sentence is not about the Prime Minister, but I will withdraw it if you do not like that word, Mr Speaker.
Those were the things that got Jeffrey Archer, Fiona Onasanya and Chris Huhne kicked out of this place or forced to resign. Of course, I have no hope of the Prime Minister’s Front Benchers, who are tax-dodging, Russian-financed snowflakes, but I do have higher hopes for his Back Benchers, so how many Back Benchers should have their credibility destroyed in supporting the Prime Minister?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us try and see if we can keep it temperate and moderate. “There was no individual mentioned, so therefore it was within the rules”—that is not what I would expect, but that is where we are.

Boris Johnson: I heard what the hon. Member said. I do not agree with it, and nor do I agree with what he said about those on the Front Bench.

David Simmonds: I was lucky, in that on Saturday night I got to hold the hand of my father-in-law as he died of complications from covid, so I understand the anger that many people feel and the challenge that we all face when it comes to the credibility of our Government and the good actions of this Conservative Government, which I support. But I have to ask my right hon. Friend what steps he has in mind to restore the moral authority of this Government.

Boris Johnson: I think the best thing the Government can do is to continue to deliver on the promises that we made to the British people, and that is what we are doing.

Caroline Lucas: The respected constitutional historian Lord Peter Hennessy reminds us that it is the Prime Minister who is the guardian of the ministerial code. What can we do to protect that code when the person who is entrusted with guarding it breaks the code and its overarching duty to comply with the law, and becomes, in the words of Lord Hennessy, “a rogue Prime Minister”?

Boris Johnson: I do not agree with that characterisation. I have explained to the House why I spoke as I did, and I have apologised for the mistake that I made.

Paul Howell: My constituents in Sedgefield have expressed their satisfaction at how we are helping the people of Ukraine, but also their frustration and anger at events in No. 10. They also believe that one is not linked to the other. The Prime Minister’s contrition over his error is welcome, and I thank him for it. While it was a clear error of judgment, I certainly do not  believe it is a resigning matter. If it was, then, regardless of Ukraine, it still would be. I, like many, have missed the funeral of a close friend, but I would still have missed that funeral regardless of the PM’s error, because the rules were correct and his error does not change that. As regards Ukraine, though, may I encourage him to please continue his efforts with full vigour?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I understand the frustration and anger of his constituents in Sedgefield. I understand perfectly how they feel; I renew my apologies to them, and I also share what he has to say about Ukraine.

Stella Creasy: Conservative Members have talked about repentance, the Prime Minister has offered us his apology, and we are being asked to move on, but the critical question for all of us is whether the Metropolitan police has moved on from this matter. The Prime Minister says that he cannot deal with hypotheticals, but now that it has occurred to him what a party actually is, can he tell us whether he expects more fines to come? Yes or no?

Boris Johnson: I would love to give more commentary on this, but I have told the House very clearly that I cannot do that until the investigation is complete.

Rob Butler: The deputy head of the Ukrainian President’s office has said that the UK is the leader in defence support for Ukraine, the leader in the anti-war coalition and the leader in sanctions against the Russian aggressor. With Russia’s offensive in the Donbas beginning the next stage of Putin’s appalling invasion, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the UK will remain the leader of international efforts to support Ukraine, including by persuading all our friends and allies of the need to stand up to Putin’s outrageous actions?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I know that the whole House—I think the unity on this has been important—will want the UK Government to continue to take that role, and we will certainly will.

Colum Eastwood: People across these islands had to watch through care home windows as their loved ones died. Parents had to bury their children without the comfort of their family around them. While that was happening, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were partying in Downing Street. We know he has no respect for the public, but can he show us that he has some respect—just a little bit of respect—for himself and please, please, please resign now?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I understand the feelings of his constituents, but I must direct him to what I said earlier on.

Jacob Young: May I welcome the Prime Minister’s renewed focus on nuclear energy and its power to transform our energy independence? Does he also recognise that we need not just energy independence, but independence in our foundation industries such as chemicals and steel?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. Can I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent marriage, by the way? We certainly see nuclear energy as of vital importance, as well of course as investing in our new technologies, which is why we are putting record investments into R&D—£22 billion.

Nadia Whittome: The Prime Minister broke the laws that he made—laws to protect public health—and then repeatedly misled Parliament. Does the Prime Minister agree that comments made by his Northern Ireland Secretary this morning comparing his fine to a parking ticket are insulting, and when will he do what the majority of those in this country want and resign?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member. Look, I in no way minimise the importance of the fine I have received, as I have said several times this afternoon.

Richard Drax: We all have our faults and I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that he has his share of his own, but he also has many attributes, and one of them is courage. It took courage to go to Ukraine to stand up for freedom and for people who have been subjected to barbarism. I must take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend if he will review the cuts to our armed forces and ensure that the future of this country is invested in to meet this future and very real threat?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a valiant campaigner for the armed forces in all their guises, and quite rightly. It is partly thanks to the lobbying of himself and others like him that we have increased defence spending by record sums—£24 billion—and that has enabled us and helped us greatly in helping our Ukrainian friends.

Barbara Keeley: A constituent wrote to me about his feelings about the Downing Street parties. Good Friday was the second anniversary of the death of his wife, a healthcare assistant at Bolton Hospital, who died from covid. Over the 10 days she was ill, he was not able to go with her to hospital or visit her until just before she died. After she died, he had to plan her funeral alone, there was no wake, and after the funeral he had to go back to an empty home with no support from family and friends. It is clear that the Conservative party wants to move on, but since his wife died, my constituent tells me he has been unable to work, to move on or to grieve. I want to ask my constituent’s question to the Prime Minister directly:
“I followed the law to the letter, so why does the government think that the laws don’t apply to them?”

Boris Johnson: I want to say again how sorry I am for the loss of the hon. Member’s constituent, and I apologise to him personally and to his family—all those who lost loved ones—and it is a measure of the seriousness with which I take this today. Of course, we think the law applies to us: of course it does.

Catherine West: At high altitude, one’s nose starts to bleed. With the rise in national insurance and more tax than for 70 years,  our constituents are crying out for help—whether with their energy bills, whether with the rents that have gone up by at least 20% in some parts of my constituency—yet we will be facing this sort of debate day after day until the Prime Minister faces up to his responsibility and resigns, or the Conservative Members here take him out. That is the choice before we can actually start to focus on the things that matter.

Boris Johnson: May I respectfully say to the hon. Member that I think the real choice that this Government —this House of Commons—should follow is getting on with the job of serving the people we were elected to serve and helping them with the costs of living? That is what we are doing.

Carol Monaghan: At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday 8 December, the Prime Minister said
“there was no party and…no covid rules were broken.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
Today, he refers to his lawbreaking as a “mistake”. Can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents, and indeed to children across these isles, what the difference is between a lie and a mistake?

Boris Johnson: I have apologised deeply for what I got wrong, and I have explained to the House why I spoke as I did on that occasion and others.

Wayne David: Many references have been made to the views of the electorate of this country, and I can tell the Prime Minister that those views are shared by my constituents as well. So I would ask the Prime Minister: would he be prepared to take a truth detection test after every prime ministerial statement?

Boris Johnson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is being serious, but I spoke in all good faith to the House, and I will continue to do so.

Stephen Farry: I wonder what continued purpose the Prime Minister sees for the ministerial code, given the frequency with which it is seemingly broken with impunity. How can the UK be a credible leader on liberal democratic values around the world, when the basic norms of accountability are thrown aside to save the skin of one man?

Boris Johnson: The answer to that question is staring the hon. Member in the face, if he looks at what is happening around the world. The UK is providing moral, political and diplomatic leadership as well as military support, and that is what we will continue to do.

Justin Madders: The Prime Minister happens to believe that he did not knowingly break the law. Many of my constituents will have difficulty accepting that. However, if we suspend disbelief for a minute, the Prime Minister is—this is based on his own words—telling the world that he did not know what the rules were, so I ask him: does he think someone who does not understand the laws they are bringing in is fit to lead this country?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member very much. I have explained why I thought that the event was within the rules, and I apologise very sincerely.

Chi Onwurah: Many Newcastle upon Tyne Central residents have contacted me to share precious moments missed, and have charged me with holding the Prime Minister to account. They do not accept his apology, because they thought long and hard about the difficult decisions they had to make, weighing up the huge personal cost against the terrible consequences of spreading the virus. They made the right decision. The Prime Minister did not, apparently because he is too stupid to understand his own regulations. If he is so much stupider than my constituents, why—how—can he claim to lead them and the nation?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member’s constituents very much for what they did throughout the pandemic. It is thanks to people up and down the country who followed the rules that we have been able to defeat covid, or beat it back in the way that we have, and I apologise heartily for what I got wrong.

Christine Jardine: I, like so many others in this place, I am sure, am profoundly proud of the way in which the people of this country stood together and showed commitment and resolve throughout the covid crisis. They are now facing a cost of living crisis, and on top of all that, they are giving 100% support to the people of Ukraine. It breaks my heart that they have been so badly let down by the person to whom they looked to lead them with the same sort of commitment and honour that they have shown. Does the Prime Minister recognise that no apology, however heartfelt or genuine, can make up for that loss of faith? Perhaps it is time he recognised that the people of this country deserve better.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member very much, and I understand completely people’s feelings about covid, what they did and the failings in No. 10, but I think that the job of the Government is to get on and deliver for those very people now facing the cost of living crisis that she describes, and that is what we are going to do.

Vicky Foxcroft: Prime Minister, I personally found that apology shocking. People have lost loved ones and have not been able to attend their funerals. My BTEC tutor in performing arts, Martin Cosgrif, sadly passed away from covid. He saw something in the young me, who many felt was destined for nothing, and encouraged me to attend university. He was a fantastic man and is deeply missed by all his students. In the words of one of his friends, “We were his children,” yet none of us was able to attend his funeral. What does the Prime Minister say to all of Martin’s former students from Accrington and Rossendale College, who were unable to mark the passing of this influential man?

Boris Johnson: He sounds like a remarkable man, and I am very sorry for the hon. Lady’s loss, and the loss of all the pupils she mentions.

Deidre Brock: We have rightly heard from Conservative Members about the barbaric nature of Putin’s aggressive attitude to Ukraine, but nothing about the Prime Minister’s party returning the donations it has received from friends of Putin; when can we hear about that?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much, and all donations are registered in the normal way.

Chris Matheson: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said that he felt that the issues covered by the statement were not linked, but I have to disagree. We support Ukraine because we support democracy, self-determination and the international rules-based order. Does the Prime Minister not understand that when we go to other countries and ask them to follow a rules-based order, they will now simply say, “You don’t follow your own rules, mate, so why should we follow the rules you want us to follow”? He is undermining this country and our reputation abroad.

Boris Johnson: On the contrary, I believe that people abroad can see how closely our leaders and rulers are held to account, and that is exactly what we are fighting for and helping the Ukrainians to defend.

Alan Brown: In yet another shameless episode, the Prime Minister comes here and says, “I am sorry I was caught, but there is a war in Ukraine and a cost of living crisis”—a crisis that his Government have done nothing to alleviate. We are asked to believe that this lawbreaking, incompetent Prime Minister is the best the UK can rely on during this time of crisis for Ukraine and for the cost of living. Is that not a metaphor for the UK, of which he is the figurehead, and is it not time for him to go?

Boris Johnson: The most important thing is that we focus on the priorities of the people of this country—in Scotland and around the country—and tackle the aftershocks of covid, the effects of the war in Ukraine and the impact on inflation, and that is what we are doing.

Sarah Jones: Does the Prime Minister think that he broke the law?

Boris Johnson: I completely accept that the police are right, and that is why I have paid the fine.

Florence Eshalomi: At every stage the Prime Minister has given the House and the public a different account or version of what happened until more revelations forced him to change his mind. The Prime Minister has outlined that he is sorry, and he should be sorry, because he almost died from this disease—and the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital in my constituency who treated him did not have a party for nine minutes. Does the Prime Minister not understand that he is a distraction? Constituents write to me about issues such as the cost of living and the crisis in Ukraine; will the Prime Minister do the decent thing and end this distraction by resigning?

Boris Johnson: The best and most decent thing we can all do is help our constituents with the issues that matter most to them, and the hon. Lady mentions the No. 1 and No. 2 issues.

Debbie Abrahams: Trust and confidence in our democracy is at an all-time low. Does the Prime Minister accept his part in that lack of confidence and trust? Should we not put the ministerial code on a statutory footing, and have it underpinned by the Nolan principles, in the same way that it is in the devolved Governments?

Boris Johnson: I repeat what I said earlier: there could not be a clearer expression of the robustness of our democracy than that all of us must be held to account. I have been held to account, and I apologise very sincerely.

Matt Western: The public will be appalled by the Prime Minister’s statement, because not only did he make a statement to the nation virtually every night during the pandemic, but the Government he leads spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ pounds on advertising campaigns demanding that the public followed the rules. One featured a woman in intensive care on a ventilator. The Prime Minister must have seen it; it said:
“Look her in the eyes and tell her you never bend the rules.”
Three months ago I reminded him of this, and asked him to explain himself; he told me to wait until after the police had investigated. They now have; it is clear that he bent the rules. He is taking the public for fools, isn’t he?

Boris Johnson: I apologise again. I thank the public very much for what they did: by their collective action, they have helped us to keep covid at bay.

Stephen Timms: But giving an apology and then carrying on is not being held to account. Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is a very serious problem for the long term in leaving a lawbreaker in charge of the lawmakers?

Boris Johnson: I have said what I have said. I apologise and want to say again to the House that when I spoke before in this Chamber about events in Downing Street, I spoke in good faith.

Pete Wishart: The Prime Minister spent less than two minutes addressing his lawbreaking in his statement to the House; that is somewhat less than the full account he has promised for the last few weeks. The one thing our constituents wanted to hear was a resignation statement, not any more of these mealy-mouthed apologies. The public will be astounded that the word they now most associate with the Prime Minister we cannot use to describe him in this House. The country knows what he is; we know what he is; and I think the Prime Minister even knows what he is. Will he now, for the sake of this country, just go?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much and repeat what I said earlier. I apologise and direct him to my earlier statement.

Rupa Huq: Margot from Acton turns five on Saturday. We were talking at an Easter service over the break, and she wanted me to ask the Prime Minister to come to her party, while her parents, in common with the majority of our nation—look at any opinion poll—think he should signal his intention to step down today. To spare himself the embarrassment of the local election results and further fines to come—he cannot rule out further fines for even more boozy parties that were much worse than being ambushed by a cake—will he do both? That way—he has able deputies—he can have something nice to look forward to at the weekend, somewhere where there will be no illegality.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her kind invitation. I do not know whether Margot herself wants to extend the invitation, but I am afraid I will be busy doing what we are doing: getting on with delivering the priorities of the British people.

Nick Smith: Lord Denning said, “No matter how high you are, the law is above you.” Isn’t it time to go, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I agree very much with Lord Denning, and that is why I apologise in the way that I do.

Brendan O'Hara: Having read the Prime Minister’s apology, may I say on behalf of the people of Argyll and Bute, is that it? It is no wonder I have been inundated with emails from constituents who believe the Prime Minister has been treating them like fools. Typical of the emails I have received is one this morning from Cathy in Helensburgh, who described the Prime Minister as
“a self-serving, truth-twisting charlatan.”
Of course I would never use such language in this place, but Cathy’s assessment is absolutely correct. Does the Prime Minister recognise this to be a widely held view of his character?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have asked for moderate and temperate language; that is not a clever way of getting around that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think long and hard before doing that again—and this might be a warning to others. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw the way he put that.

Brendan O'Hara: Mr Speaker, with respect to you and the Chair, I withdraw the remarks I made.

Boris Johnson: In that case, I humbly remind the hon. Gentleman of the apology I have given.

Stephen Kinnock: The Prime Minister’s case for his defence seems to be based on it being impossible for him to resign because of the Ukraine war, but his entire parliamentary party, from where his replacement would be drawn, is united around the Government position on Ukraine, and of course there are numerous examples of Conservative Members of Parliament moving against leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher in 1990 and Chamberlain in 1940, so will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he specifically  and individually has to carry on as Prime Minister at this time? Surely it is not because he thinks that this House trusts him to do so.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asks an elaborate question; let me give a simple answer: I have apologised and continue to apologise, and what I want to do is get on with the job.

Mark Hendrick: When is the Prime Minister going to stop dissembling, distracting and deflecting and start telling the truth to this House?

Boris Johnson: At all times, I have spoken in good faith to this House.

Janet Daby: This is the first Prime Minister in office to make and break his own rules for lockdown offences. Neil Ferguson resigned from SAGE and Catherine Calderwood quit as Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer—both for breaking covid rules. They realised that actions speak louder than words, and they took responsibility. Why is it right for them to resign and not for the Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much and repeat the apology that I have given.

Mike Amesbury: The Prime Minister has broken the law—guilty as charged—that many people up and down our shores abided by. They never had the opportunity to say goodbye to loved ones. The Prime Minister also misled the House over and over again and misled the public over and over again. Does he believe in the ministerial code? Is it worth the paper it is written on?

Boris Johnson: Let me repeat my apologies for what I got wrong and what went wrong in Downing Street and also my explanation for why I have spoken as I have in this House.

Clive Efford: Originally, there was one party, and the Prime Minister told the House that he had been assured that there was no party. It then turned out that there were parties but he was not in attendance. He then had to tell the House that he had in fact attended parties. He told the House that he had been assured on each occasion of the truth of what he said, so someone must have committed a serious breach of their responsibilities to advise the Prime Minister in a way that led to him coming to the House and inadvertently misleading the House. What has happened to those people?

Boris Johnson: I have apologised for what I have got wrong and I take full responsibility for everything that happened in No.10. For the rest of his question, the hon. Gentleman must wait for the completion of the investigation.

Zarah Sultana: Energy bills are soaring, wages are falling and the cost of living crisis is getting worse and worse, but while my constituents are forced to choose between heating and eating, the  Chancellor is benefiting from the non-dom tax loophole and 17 of the Prime Minister’s 22 Cabinet members have refused to deny that they or their families benefit from tax havens or non-dom status. They are laughing in our faces while robbing the public purse. So I ask the Prime Minister, how many more children need to go hungry at night before he stops putting the greed of his super-rich mates before the needs of ordinary people?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can the hon. Lady withdraw “robbing the public purse”? That is just not the case.

Zarah Sultana: Yes.

Steve McCabe: If the Downing Street photographer is a publicly funded post, does that mean that all the photographs of the parties are public property and should be available for access?

Boris Johnson: I am not going to comment on the investigation until it is complete.

Andy McDonald: Truth and honesty matter, and the Prime Minister has repeatedly told the House that all guidance and all rules were observed. That is not true. He also told the House that there were no parties; indeed, his Chancellor also said that he had not attended a party. Neither of those things are true. So, for once in his privileged, entitled life, will he do the decent thing, come to the Dispatch Box, and correct the record? There isn’t anybody who is fooled by this, but he continues to take the British people for fools, and they will not put up with it.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I want to repeat what I have said about the event in question, for which I have received an FPN. I apologise heartily for that. It was my mistake entirely. I thought it was within the rules and it has turned out not to be the case. As for other events, I’m afraid I am going to have to stick by what I have said previously and await—I hope he will allow me—the conclusion of the investigation.

Alison Thewliss: I got many emails from my constituents over the weekend. One of them has stuck with me; it is from Victoria, who worked in respiratory wards during the covid-19 pandemic. She says:
“I’ve watched people die alone, sick and confused, begging us to see their family one last time, with only us to hold their hands and comfort them. I’ve watched family members banging on the locked ward doors, crying, screaming and pleading for us to let them hold their dying loved ones. We were the ones that watched this and enforced this. We were the ones who had to tell families how sorry we were but that the government guidelines meant they couldn’t hug their families one last time.
The time for apologies is over, we don’t accept them.”
When will the Prime Minister resign?

Boris Johnson: I want to thank her for what she has said, but to remind her of what I have already said, which is that I feel the greatest sorrow and grief for those like Victoria who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. I understand the pain that they must feel and the anger that they must feel, and I repeat my apologies.

Paula Barker: The fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both been fined for breaking the very rules that they themselves set means that they are either incompetent or they think that the people of our country are beneath them. Either way, and with the prospect of further fines looming for the Prime Minister, they are not fit to occupy the two highest offices in the land. My constituents of Liverpool, Wavertree have overwhelmingly told me that they do not believe their apologies to be sincere, so the question for my constituents is when they can expect your resignations.

Boris Johnson: I thank her. Look, I cannot offer any further commentary on the investigation. All I can do is renew and repeat the apologies I have given to her constituents, whether they accept them or not.

Dave Doogan: Only this Prime Minister could have, together with his staff, laughed up their sleeves believing they were above the law and demonstrated to an entire country that they are beneath the public’s respect, more accurately. Vacuous self-congratulations from the Tory opposite about the role that the Government are playing in Ukraine are a disservice to the service men and women who are in country, doing the spade work, protecting democracy. To use the bloodshed of the fallen Ukrainians as some sort of political cover to keep this Prime Minister in office, is an utter disgrace, but no less than my Angus constituents have come to expect. This Government are compounding the cost of living crisis, but we are led to believe that that, together with the Ukraine crisis, is why we must endure this Prime Minister. So let me test his knowledge. What anti-ship missiles will his Government be sending to Ukraine? If he cannot answer that simple question, will he resign?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. One of the systems that we are looking at, since he asks, is to see if we can mount some Brimstones on the back of technicals to see if that will do the job, but there are other options that I do not want to discuss.

Martin Docherty: Let me first wish the Prime Minister good luck in their trip to India, where I am sure they will raise the ongoing arbitrary detention of Jagtar Singh Johal with Prime Minister Modi. That said, if the Prime Minister believes that they inadvertently misled the House based on evidence given at the time, surely the Prime Minister would then agree with me and with Alex Massie of The Spectator that such an offence rests on the proposition that the Prime Minister is an idiot?

Boris Johnson: I have spoken in good faith and, of course, continue to raise the case of his constituent.

Stephen Flynn: Does the Prime Minister believe that a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who openly treats the public like they are mugs is a help or a hindrance to the cause of Scottish independence?

Boris Johnson: I believe that the biggest help to the cause of the Union is the incompetence of the Scottish Nationalists in government.

Peter Grant: The whole functioning of this place hangs on the belief that everyone behaves in an honourable way at all times. Unfortunately, the people who matter out there do not believe that we do. We now know that 72% of them think that the Prime Minister is part of the problem; 72% of the citizens of these four nations cannot hear the two words “Boris” and “Johnson” without immediately hearing a word that I am not allowed to say on their behalf. Is the Prime Minister really going to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the best future they can hope for is a future under a Prime Minister whose character and conduct can only be described in words that are banned from use in this place?

Boris Johnson: I think the best future for the people of Scotland is to continue with the United Kingdom that has served this country well for hundreds of years and whose role is valued around the world, perhaps never more than in the last few months.

Jeff Smith: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Surely it is not a new Member for the SNP? I call Jeff Smith.

Jeff Smith: It is so busy I could not find a space, Mr Speaker.
The event in question happened on 19 June 2020. Two days later, on 21 June, my constituent Steven’s partner died of cancer at home. In the weeks before that, she was in hospital. Steven said:
“When she needed me most, I was told I could not visit her because of the no visitors rule. In the texts I received from her, it was obvious that she needed somebody to just talk to and hold her hand.”
Steven obeyed the rules and, like so many people, he thinks the Prime Minister should stand down. The defence from Conservative Back Benchers seems to be that he cannot resign because we have a crisis in Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister think he is the only person on the Conservative Benches who is capable of leading the country through a crisis?

Boris Johnson: I apologise sincerely to—I think the hon. Gentleman said the name of his constituent was Steven—Steven and his family for what we got wrong and what I got wrong during the pandemic, and the event for which I have apologised today. But I think the best thing we can do—I have said what I have said about how I have spoken in this House—is get on now with delivering for the people of this country, up and down this country, getting us through the aftershocks of covid, as we got people through the pandemic.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: There is no point of order now—we are in the middle of statements.

Energy Security Strategy

Kwasi Kwarteng: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the British energy security strategy.
Our strategy provides a clear, long-term plan to accelerate our transition away from expensive fossil fuel prices set by global markets we cannot control. It builds on our success over the past decade in which we gave the go-ahead to the first nuclear power plant in a generation and achieved a fivefold increase in renewables. The British energy security strategy marks a significant acceleration in our ambition. It is confirmation of three mutually reinforcing goals of our energy policy and, indeed, of any well-constituted energy policy: security, affordability and sustainability.
We recognise the pressures that many people across our country are facing with the cost of living. This has been greatly influenced, as we all know, by global factors. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £9 billion package of support, including a £150 council tax rebate this month and a £200 energy bill discount in October to cut energy bills quickly for the vast majority of households. We are also expanding the eligibility for the warm home discount, which will provide around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households across England and Wales with a £150 rebate on their energy bills this winter. As I speak, our energy price cap is still protecting millions of consumers from even higher wholesale spot gas prices. Furthermore, we are investing over £6 billion in decarbonising the nation’s homes and buildings—set out very clearly in last year’s heat and buildings strategy—which saves the lowest-income families around £300 a year on their bills. I want to reassure the House that the Chancellor has promised to review his package of support before October and will decide on an appropriate course of action at that time.
Cheap renewables are our best defence against fluctuations in global gas prices. By 2030, 95% of our electricity will be produced by low-carbon means. By 2035, we aim to have fully decarbonised our electricity system. We will double down on every available technology. The strategy sets out a new ambition to propel our offshore wind industry. It will increase the pace of deployment to deliver 50 GW by 2030, instead of the 40 GW committed to in the manifesto. Of that 50 GW, up to 5 GW will be floating offshore wind. The strategy also commits us to slash approval times for new offshore wind farms from four years to one year. We also feel—this is reflected in the strategy—that our solar capacity can grow by up to five times by 2035.
As is well known, most of Britain’s nuclear fleet will be decommissioned this decade. We need to replace what we are losing, but we also need to go further. From large-scale plants to small nuclear modular reactors, we aspire to provide a steady baseload of power that will complement renewable technology. Obviously, the right time to take those decisions would have been 20 years ago, but of course the Labour party all but killed off the British nuclear industry. That is why we will be reversing decades of under-investment and building back British nuclear. We aim to deliver up to 24 GW of nuclear  power by 2050, approximately three times more than today, which will represent 25% of our projected energy demand.
We are also doubling our ambition for low-carbon hydrogen production. The capacity we aim to reach by 2030 is 10 GW, with at least half of that total coming from green, electrolyser-produced hydrogen. This fuel will not only provide cleaner energy for vital British industries to move away from fossil fuels, but will also be used for storage, trains, heavy equipment and generating heat. The transition to cheap, clean power cannot happen overnight. Those calling for an immediate end to domestic oil and gas ignore the fact that it would simply make the UK more reliant on foreign imports. It would not, in fact, lead to greater decarbonisation globally.
Producing more of our own energy will protect us into the future. We feel that this historic change, this decarbonisation challenge, represents a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom: more wind, more solar and more nuclear, while also using North sea gas to transition to cheaper and cleaner power. This is a long-term plan to ensure greater energy independence and to attract hundreds of billions of private investment to back new industries that can create hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs and stimulate business across the UK. This is not only a matter of reaching net zero, vital as that is, but an issue of national security. These are all objectives that everyone across the House, I am sure, shares. We all wish to see a homegrown clean energy system that will protect our people into the future, create good clean jobs, attract private investment and, above all, drive down bills for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before I call Ed Miliband, I would just like to say that we are going to move on from this statement at 7.20 pm, so a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Can you please focus on asking a question without any preludes, so that we can get as many people in as we possibly can?

Ed Miliband: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I have to tell him that after all the hype and all the promises, his energy relaunch fails to live up remotely to the scale of the crisis that families are facing. The Government have already failed to deliver the immediate measures needed to help millions of families with their energy bills this year, and they now have an energy security strategy that has rejected the measures that could have made the most difference in the years ahead. It fails to seize the moment on the two most elementary tests of any decent green energy sprint—that is, going all-in on the cheapest forms of home-grown power, such as onshore wind, which remarkably, was not even mentioned in his statement, and finally delivering on the biggest no-brainer when it comes to an energy strategy: energy efficiency.
Hon Members do not need to take my word for it. We know from all the briefings and interviews that the Secretary of State gave before the relaunch that he has failed to deliver what he wanted. We know that he wanted a hard target to double onshore wind by 2030 and to treble it by 2035, because we have the earlier version of the document in which there were those  targets. The Secretary of State was right because the ban on onshore wind that the Government introduced in 2015 has driven up bills for consumers. What did he say 10 days before the relaunch? He said that he wanted to see a major “acceleration” in onshore wind. The Prime Minister was said to be “horrified” at the delays, but when we got the document, we saw that there was no target, no plan and more imports and higher bills as a result of his failure. Perhaps he can tell us what the nasty accident was that befell the earlier version of his strategy.
On solar, let us be clear that the Government destroyed the solar industry with their decisions in 2015, abolishing the feed-in tariff. In this document, we see weak and vague language—it is even weaker, the House will be interested to know, than in the original version of the document, which is pretty weak in itself. Will the Secretary of State explain why there is no firm target for 2030 and a retreat on large-scale solar?
Let us take energy efficiency next, the biggest failure of all. We know that the Secretary of State wanted extra resources for energy efficiency, because he helpfully briefed the media to that effect. He was right, because that would immediately cut bills, imports and fuel poverty, but again, he failed. There is not a penny more for energy efficiency in this document. Even the Secretary of State’s Minister, Lord Callanan—we have to admire his candour—said on the day:
“It would have been good to go further but, regrettably, that was not possible in this case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 2196.]
Will the Secretary of State tell us why the Government are failing to deliver when the economic, social and climate case is so overwhelming?
The Government’s failures on onshore wind, solar and energy efficiency matter because they are not just the cheapest and cleanest responses to the crisis that we face, but the quickest to deliver. That is why E.ON, the energy company, said of the strategy, that
“there is little in today’s announcement that will deliver…this decade, let alone this year.”
Why? Because the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister caved in to Back Benchers who dislike green energy and a Chancellor who refuses to make the green investments that the country needs. They cannot deliver a green energy sprint because they face both ways on green energy and simply will not make the public investment that we need.
On the other elements of the strategy, we support more ambition on hydrogen and offshore wind. On the latter, however, there are real questions about the investment required in the grid; perhaps the Secretary of State will respond to that point.
On new nuclear, the last Labour Government identified a whole series of sites for new nuclear. The Government have had 12 years in power and they have not completed a single power station.
Of course, the North sea has a role to play in the transition, but will the Secretary of State explain how maximising North sea oil and gas is consistent with all the advice from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on limiting global warming to 1.5°?
On fracking, which the Secretary of State was also too embarrassed to mention, why commission another review rather than having the courage to say out loud  what he believes: that fracking is outdated, will make no difference to prices and is unsafe, unpopular and should have no part in our future energy system?
In conclusion, the truth is that this cobbled-together energy relaunch does nothing on the cost of living and fails to deliver the green sprint that we needed. When it comes to the solutions to energy security, energy bills and the climate crisis, the Secretary of State has shown once again that the Government cannot deliver what the national interest demands.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am pleased, in this Easter season, when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, that the right hon. Gentleman is back in his place. I thought that he had disappeared for a bit, but it is very good to see him again spinning out the same lines.
Let me deal with some of his accusations. There is plenty about onshore wind in the strategy. The one thing that we say about onshore wind—unlike the right hon. Gentleman’s position—is that it has to be pursued in the context of local community support. We have always had that position and have not moved away from it. People also say, “What about the energy efficiency measures?” He will remember that we had a whole document at the end of last year devoted to energy efficiency—it was called the heat and buildings strategy. He and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) kept asking month after month, “When will the heat and buildings strategy come out?” It did come out and it addressed precisely the energy efficiency issues that he wished it to.
On nuclear—this is the last thing I will say about the remarks from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—his attempt to pretend that the last Labour Government somehow made us more secure on nuclear is laughable. That did not happen. They were notorious for doing nothing to promote the nuclear industry. They were rather like our Scottish National party friends, who are at least honest about their position—they do not want nuclear. I am still not sure what he believes about nuclear, but we are driving forward nuclear and we are delighted to make it the centrepoint of our strategy.

Mark Jenkinson: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the Labour party destroyed Britain’s nuclear industry by failing to build new nuclear projects while in office. Labour is famous for selling off the family gold, but it also sold off cupboards full of silverware, including the UK Atomic Energy Authority Ltd, a very profitable nuclear company. Will my right hon. Friend update us on our new nuclear company, Great British Nuclear, its remit for new nuclear power stations and what that might mean for Moorside in Cumbria?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The development vehicle that we have announced in the strategy will inaugurate a new era for the nuclear industry. If hon. Members speak to anybody in the industry, they will hear people say that no Government in the past 25 years have been so positive and enthusiastic about nuclear power. There will be a great future and that represents a great endorsement for the skills and the industry that my hon. Friend has so ably promoted in the House.

Alan Brown: Clearly, this is not a strategy at all, but a series of high-level targets or rehashed information that the Government have spoken about several times. The reality is that the 2022 energy price cap is 75% higher than the April 2021 price cap, putting 6.5 million UK households into fuel poverty. People are going to die and yet there was no additional support announced to alleviate fuel poverty. How many fuel-poor households does the Secretary of State think is acceptable in modern-day Britain? Will he confirm that less than a third of his £9 billion support package is actually direct money from the Treasury that will not be clawed back?
Charities and energy companies alike are calling for much greater investment in energy efficiency, so why is there no additional funding for that? I am pleased that no new money has been announced for the Secretary of State’s nuclear fantasy. Does he stand by the impact assessment that states that the cost of a new nuclear power station, including capital finance, is as high as £63 billion?
The Government have included a blue hydrogen target, so why is the Acorn carbon capture and storage cluster still a reserve? Why is there no additional funding to match the doubling of the green hydrogen target? The 50 GW offshore wind target is very welcome, but what is the Secretary of State doing to upgrade the offshore transmission network strategy and to take account of the ScotWind leasing round? When, oh when, will they remove the iniquity of the transmission charges that prejudice Scotland, and does he understand the concerns about the new nodal pricing proposal that has been announced?
When will the Secretary of State get to grip with a funding mechanism for pumped storage hydro, so that SSE can get on and complete the Coire Glas project? If the new dash for oil and gas is to provide energy security, will the Secretary of State advise what percentage of North sea oil and gas gets traded and exported and how much goes abroad for refining?
Finally, will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Treasury to publish figures showing how much in additional oil and gas revenues, how much additional VAT from our energy bills and how much additional VAT on the petrol prices increase it has received, so that we can see the Treasury windfall that has happened during this cost of living crisis?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his barrage of questions; I will try to answer a few of them. His position on nuclear and mine could not be more different, and I am very glad that he is honest and frank about nuclear. I still do not understand what his answer is on decarbonised baseload, in terms of security of supply, but I am grateful for his honesty. He will know that the transmission charges are a matter for Ofgem, and I would be very happy to speak to him and Ofgem about how we can move forward on that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Don’t forget: we want short questions and short responses, please.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Back-Bench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy has done a very swift and urgent inquiry into how  businesses and households can reduce their energy bills this winter. Will he and the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change meet me and my vice-chairs to discuss some of the very sensible and practical measures in the inquiry?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Absolutely. I always want to take the opportunity to commend the great work that my right hon. Friend did when she headed the Department, when I was Energy Minister. We are really continuing in that vein. The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change and I will be delighted to meet her and her committee to discuss ideas that will give us security, affordability and sustainability.

Tonia Antoniazzi: This morning, at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I was moved to tears listening to the chief executives of the energy companies telling us how horrific it is going to be for the public and vulnerable people to pay their bills. Now it will be fine and for the summer they will have increases, but in October it is going to be terrible. A short-term fix is not good enough—the people in this country deserve better. We deserve a long-term fix to our prices. The cost of living is extortionate, and the Secretary of State needs to help.

Kwasi Kwarteng: As I said in my statement, we are fully aware of the pressure on people’s household bills: it is a really, really extreme issue and we want to deal with it. I also said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will look at the matter again in October and see whether measures are appropriate. The hon. Lady will know that the price cap is set in August, so there is still a long period before we can work out what it is. It is a matter for Ofgem, and we are waiting to see what level it is set at in August.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the expertise and expansion in offshore renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture in northern Lincolnshire and the wider region. Does he agree that we could focus on exporting? We have great skill in financial management, planning and construction. Is he working with the Department for International Trade to expand our exports?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend makes a remarkable and interesting point. He will remember that just over two years ago, I visited Grimsby and saw him and many other local MPs, and we talked about the investment and the opportunities. I am very pleased that two and a half years later we have realised a lot of those ambitions. There is still a long way to go, but it is absolutely right to think of exporting our expertise, our talent and our sheer manufacturing ingenuity around the world. I am delighted to support him in that.

Darren Jones: It was reported that there were no further announcements on the strategy for home insulation because when the Secretary of State asked the Chancellor to use £300 million of departmental underspend for that project, the Chancellor said no. Is that true or false?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I do not remember that particular incident, but the hon. Gentleman will know that energy efficiency was the centrepiece of the heat and buildings strategy, which he welcomed only at the end of last year.

John Hayes: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The commitment to solar is vital, but does the Secretary of State recognise that food security is as important as energy security? Every building, every warehouse and every commercial enterprise should be covered in solar before a single acre of valuable arable land is consumed by solar farms.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I would be very interested to hear my right hon. Friend’s views on solar. I think solar is crucial. I am delighted that we have so many former Energy Ministers in the Chamber today; my right hon. Friend was a very distinguished holder of the post, and I am very pleased to engage with him on this important subject.

Caroline Lucas: The triple test of the strategy is whether it helps to cut dependence on Russian gas, whether it brings down bills and whether it secures a safe climate. It manages to fail on all those fronts. It also has a massive hole where energy saving should be.
It has been reported today that the Government are considering scrapping green levies, which support renewables and address fuel poverty, as the Secretary of State knows, and which therefore help to get fuel bills down. Can he reassure me that that rumour is false and that any changes made will simply be about moving those levies to general taxation—or will this be another policy led by a handful of Tory Back Benchers?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I engage with Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues all the time and they have lots of brilliant ideas. I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the strategy; I think it does deliver on security, it does deliver on longer-term affordability and it does deliver on the sustainable net zero targets that many in this House agree with.

Richard Fuller: One of the hurdles that families face when they look at putting in a heat pump or investing in home insulation is that they cannot afford the up-front costs to get the long-term gains. The enterprise investment scheme has been extremely successful in encouraging investment in entrepreneurship, which has a somewhat similar cash-flow profile, so will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Chancellor about whether we can implement a net zero enterprise investment scheme to marshal private capital to help with the social objective of achieving net zero?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We have a number of such schemes in existence and have trialled a number of others. We are always iterating the way in which we attract private capital to meet net zero; that is what we have been doing for the past three years, since net zero was passed into legislation.

Wera Hobhouse: When fracking was halted in June 2019, Ministers said that they would not bring it back without compelling evidence. Now, however, the Government say that all options are back on the table. Where is the compelling new evidence that puts fracking back on the table?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have been very clear. The hon. Lady is right to mention 2019: in October 2019 I was responsible—as was my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who was Secretary of State at the time—for announcing the moratorium. The facts about the wholesale price have changed: it is 10 times higher than at the end of 2019. I think that it is perfectly right to look at the resources that we have in our country to see whether we can use gas here for greater energy security.

Philip Dunne: May I build on the excellent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), with which I agree? The Secretary of State has included in his medium and long-term strategy the ambition to raise solar power from 14 GW to 70 GW, which would obviously make an enormous contribution to renewable energy generation. Will he follow up the excellent work that he undertook with the Treasury to remove VAT on solar panel installation and also press for VAT to be removed from electricity storage for battery walls and similar products in domestic homes?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that tax issues specifically are not in my portfolio, but I speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer all the time about how we can incentivise investment in new, exciting green technologies. That is something that we are very pleased to do.

David Linden: I think that all of us in this House, when we think of the energy crisis, would want to encourage our constituents to take forward energy efficiency measures, but in one particular type of property—the tenement properties that we have right across Glasgow’s east end—energy efficiency is even more problematic. Will the Secretary of State meet me to look at the specific energy efficiency challenges that Glaswegians face?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, as I meet many of his Scottish colleagues, to discuss really critical energy issues.

Miriam Cates: I very much welcome the commitment to rebuilding Britain’s nuclear industry. It is great news for consumers and it should be great news for the UK steel industry, particularly Speciality Steel in Stocksbridge in my constituency, which specialises in producing the kind of high-value steel required for such projects. I know that my right hon. Friend has welcomed Sizewell C’s decision to sign the UK steel charter. Can he confirm that that means it must commit to purchasing steel made and poured in the UK?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I cannot make any commitments on behalf of the company, because it is at arm’s length and has its own corporate structure, as my hon. Friend will know. However, as Secretary of State I have always championed the steel industry, which is vital for national security and for levelling up. It is a hugely important industry and I am very happy to work with her to promote it.

Seema Malhotra: Onshore wind is the cheapest power available to us, and the cleanest. Does the Secretary of State accept that bills for families and business will be much higher as a result of his failure to back it?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We have done more than many in driving onshore wind. The hon. Lady will know that we suspended the pot 1 auction and have brought it back, that we have more onshore wind than pretty much any other country in northern Europe, and that we continue aggressively and passionately to promote onshore wind.

Mark Pawsey: The retail energy market saw the big six suppliers increase to 90. Several were granted licences despite being undercapitalised, which caused them to fail and placed a burden on all consumers. We know that competition in the market is vital; what steps will the Secretary of State will be taking to make it effective?

Kwasi Kwarteng: In partnership with Ofgem, we have discussed trying to secure a much more resilient energy retail market, with financial covenants involving much more financial discipline and financial disclosure, as well as other ways in which we can ensure that what happened last winter does not happen again.

Dan Carden: Some 12,000 households in my constituency rely on prepayment meters. The chief executive of ScottishPower rightly raised that issue with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee today, saying that it was perverse that those people—often the most vulnerable—can end up paying higher rates than people with direct debit arrangements. Will the Secretary of State take this up with the energy companies, and, if necessary, compel them to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society are not paying the highest prices?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I think it was Keith Anderson who spoke to the Committee this morning. I speak to Keith and others in the sector all the time, as does the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). We will definitely look into this issue, because it seems disproportionate and unfair that people with prepayment meters should be paying so much more than those with direct debits, and we shall be happy to take it up with the leaders in the sector.

John Whittingdale: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to a new generation of nuclear power stations. Can he confirm that the eight designated sites remain the Government’s preferred locations for those, including Bradwell in my constituency, and has he yet reached a view on whether a Chinese-designed reactor could be included?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As my right hon. Friend will know, Bradwell passed the generic design assessment. That was an arm’s-length process in which the Government did not become involved. There is clearly a discussion to be had about how we can take Bradwell forward, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is an absolute commitment to up to eight sites. I am not saying eight, because obviously we have small modular reactors as well, but eight sites would mean roughly 24 GW.

Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State visited Bristol recently to look at the ambitious projects that are going on there, including new water source heat pumps and the City Leap partnership. Is the Secretary of State aware of what is going on in Bristol, and what can he do to help cities to decarbonise?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I know that Bristol has a strong tradition of green, carbon-reducing policies. I should be happy to visit the city and see the great work that is being done there. It is a part of the world that I know well from Airbus and other great industrial concerns.

John Penrose: I congratulate the Secretary of State on this excellent document. May I press him on the review of energy market arrangements and the long-term fundamental reform of the underlying market? Will he reassure me, and others on this side of the House—at the very least—that that will be done in a spirit that will maximise competition and consumer choice to ensure that we make the customer the king and the queen, and that it will include price cap reform?

Kwasi Kwarteng: All these issues are being looked at. The six-month periods for the price cap are being reviewed, and, as I have said, financial resilience for new entrants will be considered. A subject that has not been mentioned so far is the future system operator and the electricity system operator. That is a remarkable innovation, and I am proud that it is included in the document. I should be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about these matters.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State has said that this is a long-term strategy, and obviously we need that, but there is a short-term problem, namely that people cannot afford to pay their bills at present. That is partly due to the green levies, which amount to about £400 a year in additional costs to individuals. What plans has the Secretary of State to deal with that? Given his plans for a number of new offshore wind turbines, may I ask how many he believes are needed, and at what cost? What is the cost of connection to the grid, and how will that affect the capital costs on people’s energy bills?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, in the time during which I—indeed, I suspect, both of us—have been in the House, renewables have really taken off. They are the one bit of the energy story here in the UK that has been genuinely transformative and a world leader, and I am very proud of that. As for the immediate support for hard-pressed consumers facing a global price hike, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed £9 million to help people to pay their bills.

Jane Hunt: What steps are being taken to ensure that the future energy strategy of the UK is secured by the manufacture of hydrogen fuel cells in the UK—in, say, Loughborough?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I had a feeling that my hon. Friend was going to mention Loughborough. She will know that we are absolutely committed to hydrogen. It has many uses: it can be used, potentially, in the gas grid, in transport—to which she alluded—and in industrial  processes. We are very excited about the opportunities, outlined in the strategy, for more capacity so that we can drive innovation in those areas.

Cat Smith: In 2019—it was during the general election campaign, but I am sure that was just a coincidence—the Government said that fracking in Lancashire would be off the table, that there would be a moratorium and that the wells would be filled with concrete. May I ask the Secretary of State what has changed between 2019 and today that has put fracking back on the table? What on earth did he get from COP26?

Kwasi Kwarteng: There has been an issue with the wholesale gas price, which has gone up about 10 times during that period. It seems entirely reasonable, if we have gas underneath our feet, to consider the possibility of using it.

David Morris: Would my right hon. Friend like to come to Heysham and look at the two reactors that are working in my constituency? The whole community is behind the nuclear power industry, and it is our future, so I extend that invitation to my right hon. Friend.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I should be very happy to go with my hon. Friend to see the nuclear reactors. The future is decarbonised baseload power. That is what we need, and it is something with which my hon. Friend and I are 100% aligned.

Stephen Flynn: The Secretary of State has said that his energy strategy would
“drive down bills for British people”.
By how much?

Kwasi Kwarteng: That obviously refers, relatively, to whatever the wholesale price of gas will be. I am not a gas trader, and nor is the hon. Gentleman. He has no idea what the wholesale gas price will be either. The strategy will have a tendency to lower prices.

Andrew Percy: If recent events have shown us one thing, it is the importance of having our own strategic steel industry—something that I know the Secretary of State understands. The announcement of the expansion of the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme is welcomed by the industry, but can the Secretary of State tell us when we will know the details of that?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We are in constant conversation about this. It was a hard-earned win for the Government, and we are very pleased to be backing steel. My hon. Friend knows of my commitment to the industry. We have won some battles, and I look forward to engaging with him on this in the future.

Mark Hendrick: Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know, as a Lancashire MP, that the people of Lancashire are fed up to the back teeth with fracking. As the Secretary of State knows, the moratorium came in 2019 because Lancashire was experiencing tremors measuring 8 on the Richter scale. It was a safety measure,  because we were worried about safety. It was nothing to do with the wholesale gas price, so please, Secretary of State, do not come out with that now.

Kwasi Kwarteng: There was drilling, and I remember it well. When I was the Energy Minister, I was receiving daily updates on the Richter scale, and yes, there were moments—there were times—when the level exceeded the limit that we had imposed. I think it entirely legitimate now, given where gas prices are, to look again at some of the evidence.

Alun Cairns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication of the report, which provides certainty for so many sectors, particularly oil and gas, and nuclear. However, much attention has rightly been paid to the support for energy-intensive industries, and there have understandably been many questions involving the steel industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the support extends to the chemical industry, given that Dow Corning has a site in my constituency, as well as others?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My right hon. Friend knows very well that the chemical industry is central not only to people in his constituency, but to those throughout the north-east. We engage with energy-intensive sectors such as the glass, steel and chemical sectors, and others.

Jack Brereton: Ceramics?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Ceramics, yes. All those industries are covered by the energy-intensive scheme that we want to promote.

Rachael Maskell: One of the greatest constraints on decarbonisation is the skill supply. Will the Secretary of State publish a workforce plan for the energy sector, so we can ensure that we are making the necessary investment in the skills that we need, both now and in the future?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is why, when I was the Energy Minister, I—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), the then Education Secretary—set up the green jobs taskforce, working with unions across the sector. We came up with some very good proposals. We are driving that forward, because we recognise the skills gap and want to close it.

Virginia Crosbie: I am delighted that Wylfa is specifically included in the British energy security strategy, and I look forward to welcoming the Energy Minister to Ynys Môn in a few weeks. The new Wylfa nuclear plant will bring local jobs for local people. Will the Minister consider discounting electricity bills for locals, and locating the headquarters of the new Great British Nuclear vehicle in north Wales, in recognition of the nuclear expertise and heritage in the area?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I think I would be getting a bit ahead of myself if I were to decide here and now at the Dispatch Box where that body will be sited, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s tireless and passionate advocacy for the nuclear industry. She, among a number of others  in this Chamber, has been a brilliant champion, and I look forward to working with her to drive nuclear power in Wylfa and across the country.

Hilary Benn: People used to have their water supply cut off if they could not pay their bill, until it was made illegal to do so. Given that more and more of our constituents will be unable to pay their gas and electricity bills as the year progresses, does the Secretary of State share my concern that more and more prepayment metres will be installed in response, and that our constituents will in effect end up disconnecting themselves because they do not have enough money to put in the meter? If so, what is he going to do about it?

Kwasi Kwarteng: As I said in an earlier answer, I speak to the industry all the time. This has been raised, and we want to prevent people from having to take up prepayment metres if they can avoid it. That is something that we have done through a number of interventions to try to reduce the impact of very high prices globally. I also refer the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a £9 billion package to help people who face high bills.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am afraid that this will have to be the last question. I call Jack Brereton.

Jack Brereton: Energy price fluctuations are a particular issue for the ceramics sector. Over Easter, I was delighted to visit 1882 Ltd, a ceramics producer in my constituency that has raised these concerns with me. What is my right hon. Friend doing to support the ceramics sector, and all energy-intensive sectors, to reduce the cost of energy and help to increase energy sustainability?

Kwasi Kwarteng: My hon. Friend will have noticed that there is a commitment in the strategy to energy-intensive users. From his first day here, he has been a tireless champion of the ceramics industry. I was pleased to see him in his constituency when I went there, and to the other Stoke constituencies. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we protect our precious ceramics industry in the UK.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sorry that some people did not get in—a note will be taken of their names—but we have real time pressure today.

Points of Order

Jamie Stone: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 4 April, during the Easter recess, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport posted a tweet that read:
“I have come to the conclusion that government ownership is holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon. A change of ownership will give Channel 4 the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future.”
That announcement was made directly through social media, so elected Members of Parliament had no opportunity to question the Secretary of State on behalf of our constituents. Why was this announced on Twitter during the recess, instead of to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker? Have you been informed of any forthcoming statement from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and can you suggest what means I should pursue to get the Secretary of State to come to the Chamber to answer relevant questions on this issue?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for giving forward notice of it. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that he wants any important statements to be made to Parliament first, rather than being made in any other form, never mind on social media. I have been given no indication of whether a statement will be made today, or indeed in the future, but I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to question the Secretary of State on the possible privatisation of Channel 4.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We had a statement today from the Prime Minister, in which he was questioned about the fine that he received for breaking the law over covid restrictions, but we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also received a fine for breaking the law. Does that require him to come to the House to make a statement too, and have you been given notice that he intends to do so?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I have been given no indication that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement on that or any other matter, but again, I am absolutely certain that there will be ample opportunity for people to question Ministers in the coming days, weeks and months.

Sewage Discharges

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Tim Farron: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for mandatory targets and timescales for the ending of sewage discharges into waterways and coastal areas; to make provision about the powers of Ofwat to monitor and enforce compliance with those targets and timescales; to require water companies to publish quarterly reports on the impact of sewage discharges on the natural environment, animal welfare and human health; to require the membership of water company boards to include at least one representative of an environmental group; and for connected purposes.
It is such a privilege to be in this place to speak for the people of the lakes and dales of Cumbria. Cumbria is one of the most beautiful places on earth. It is also, on occasion, one of the wettest. It needs to be; how else could we keep the lakes, tarns, meres, waters, rivers and becks filled and flowing? Cumbria is home to two national parks and two world heritage sites, yet its waterways are shamefully often polluted by sewage discharges, and those discharges take place legally and without sanction. Our lakes and rivers are our natural treasures, yet water company bosses are degrading those natural treasures to keep a hold of their own treasure. Last year, the water companies made profits of £2.7 billion and paid out £27 million in bonuses. Their chief executives earn seven-figure sums, yet they are free by law to preside over enormous numbers of dangerous discharges that damage our environment and our wildlife, and are a threat to human life, too.
This Bill aims to stop the water companies putting their personal treasure ahead of our natural treasure. The Government choose to let them get away with it, but this Bill will stop them. In 2021, raw sewage was pumped into the River Lune near Sedbergh in my constituency for 5,351 hours—the equivalent of 222 continuous days. This is not just a problem for me and my constituents; it is a colossal crisis affecting the entire country. Water companies pumped sewage into rivers nationwide 772,000 times in the last two years—more than 1,000 discharges each day. Some of those discharges lasted almost a whole year, and all of them were legal. Sewage discharges happen far too frequently and for far too long for the Government and the water companies to be able to credibly hide behind the excuse that they are caused only by exceptional rainfall. As a result of these discharges, only 14% of England’s rivers now meet the criteria to be defined as ecologically good.
It is true that our sewerage systems are shamelessly out of date, but the water companies responsible for improving them have little impetus to do so because the Government are barely holding them to account. The British public pay these companies to not just provide us with clean water, but ensure safe and clean processes for waste water and sewage. Too often, it feels as though the companies forget about half of that bargain, and this Government let them. United Utilities, our local water company in the north-west, was the culprit in four of the 10 longest sewage discharges in 2021—the most of any water company in the country. Meanwhile it posted profits of £602 million and dished out £6 million in bonuses—also the most of any water company in the  country. Far from being punished or held accountable for the degradation of our waterways, the water bosses, it appears to the public, are being rewarded for it. Those 772,000 discharges were legal. They happened under the Government’s nose while the rest of us had to hold ours.
The water companies are also guilty of emissions that have broken the law, but they are rarely held to account. That is, of course, something of a theme for this Government. Between 2018 and 2021, only 11 fines were issued to water companies for pumping sewage into our lakes and rivers. Only three of those fines were over £1 million, and four were less than £50,000. The Government make it cheaper for water companies to pay a fine than to take action to stop the discharges. It is no wonder that the companies do not invest enough in cleaning up our lakes and rivers.
I can confirm that I left the lakes this morning without a coat, because spring is here. The visitors are with us in Cumbria, and summer is around the corner. The UK’s waterways will soon be teeming with swimmers, dippers and paddlers, nowhere more so than in the English lakes and most of all Windermere, at the heart of the most visited part of the UK outside London. Windermere has three designated bathing sites, all of them ranked as being of good standard. It is currently a safe place to visit, but the Government’s weak regulation is putting that at risk.
United Utilities legally dumped sewage into Windermere on 71 days in 2020. How can that be considered anything other than outrageous? The Government allow such discharges because they are considered to be storm events. Well, Cumbria has more rainfall in a month than many places have in a year. Things that might strike Ministers in London as storm events are actually mild drizzle for those of us in the lakes. By allowing the water companies to hide behind storm events as an excuse to pollute our lakes and rivers, the Government show their ignorance of communities such as ours in Cumbria and allow the water companies to pollute Britain’s wettest places the worst.
Tourism and hospitality employs 60,000 people in Cumbria. It is by far our biggest employer, being worth £3.5 billion a year to our local economy. I do not want the Government to put that at risk by allowing our lakes to be polluted. I want them to protect the wellbeing of everyone who visits and lives in the lakes.
As well as the human impact, there is an ecological impact. Maintaining the quality of our rivers, streams and lakes is crucial to protecting biodiversity for centuries to come. The Environmental Audit Committee has reported that
“rivers in England are in a mess.”
The population of 39 of the 42 main salmon rivers in England are categorised as at risk or probably at risk. When one part of the complex interconnected life of a river is damaged, the whole ecosystem is hurt, from duckweed and dragonflies to otters and trout.
We must not be duped into thinking that the Government took action to deal with this in the Environment Act 2021. We remember they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Members of the other place into moving an amendment, but that amendment is essentially meaningless. It sets no timescales or targets. It is a wish list, not an action plan.
This Bill would put that right by ensuring that action is taken. It would provide for mandatory targets and timescales for the ending of sewage discharges into waterways and coastal areas. It would also strengthen Ofwat, the Water Services Regulation Authority, to hold water companies accountable. Furthermore, it would take the radical step of placing representatives of local environmental groups on the board of these companies so that executives have nowhere to hide from the impact of their practices on our waterways, on the wildlife that depends on them and on the economies and communities they underpin.
The Bill would also help to get to the heart of the problem, not just the headlines, by making sure we get the right information. The Government tell us how long discharges happen and how often they happen, but not the volume of sewage discharged into the watercourses. Without that information, we cannot know the scale of the problem. In small rivers and becks, or in the confined space of a lake, volume has a much bigger and more damaging impact on humans, animals and ecology.
Both the Government and the water companies hide behind asking inadequate questions, and therefore getting inadequate answers. For instance, the Government’s Environment Agency has to test for nutrients and chemicals in the water, but it does not have to test for bacteria, yet bacteria are the greatest health concern. Unless a watercourse is designated as bathing water, and barely any rivers are designated as bathing water, bacteria is tested for only by concerned citizens such as the marvellous people I recently met on the River Kent in Staveley. Testing for bacteria must become compulsory.
The River Kent in Cumbria is designated as a site of special scientific interest. Among other things, it hosts protected species such as pearl mussels, which are rarer   than the giant panda, yet sewage is being legally discharged into this protected river almost every day.
The House can see why this Bill matters to my community and the whole United Kingdom. The Bill would require water companies to produce accurate and comprehensive quarterly reports on the impact of sewage discharges on animal welfare, human health and the environment. The public have a right to know what our water companies are being allowed to do. With the cleansing impact of public scrutiny, and the literally cleansing effect of water companies spending their money on upgrades rather than bonuses, hopefully the public will soon see encouraging signs to give them faith in our waterways and renewed faith in our political system that the polluters will actually be held to account for dumping sewage into our lakes and rivers, that they will no longer be permitted to do so, no matter how powerful they may be, and that companies making billions in profit will no longer be protected by a Conservative Government who permitted them to discharge sewage 772,000 times in two years.
What, then, shall we protect: the inflated profits of water companies, or the safety and beauty of our lakes and rivers? It is time for all of us in this House to take action and to pick a side.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Farron, Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Sarah Green, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Jamie Stone and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Tim Farron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 303).

Online Safety Bill

[Relevant Documents: Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, Session 2021-22: Draft Online Safety Bill, HC 609, and the Government Response, CM 640; Eighth Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Draft Online Safety Bill and the legal but harmful debate, HC 1039, and the Government response HC 1221; Second Report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2019-21, Misinformation in the COVID-19 Infodemic, HC 234, and the Government response, HC 894; Second Report of the Petitions Committee, Tackling Online Abuse, HC 766, and the Government response, HC 1224; Eleventh Report of the Treasury Committee, Economic Crime, HC 145; e-petition 272087, Hold online trolls accountable for their online abuse via their IP address; e-petition 332315, Ban anonymous accounts on social media; e-petition 575833, Make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account; e-petition 582423, Repeal Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and expunge all convictions; e-petition 601932, Do not restrict our right to freedom of expression online.]
Second Reading

Nadine Dorries: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Given the time and the number of people indicating that they wish to speak, and given that we will have my speech, the shadow Minister’s speech and the two winding-up speeches, there might be 10 minutes left for people to speak. I will therefore take only a couple of interventions and speak very fast in the way I can, being northern.
Almost every aspect of our lives is now conducted via the internet, from work and shopping to keeping up with our friends, family and worldwide real-time news. Via our smartphones and tablets, we increasingly spend more of our lives online than in the real world.
In the past 20 years or so, it is fair to say that the internet has overwhelmingly been a force for good, for prosperity and for progress, but Members on both sides of the House will agree that, as technology advances at warp speed, so have the new dangers this progress presents to children and young people.

Mark Francois: My right hon. Friend will know that, last Wednesday, the man who murdered our great friend Sir David Amess was sentenced to a whole-life term. David felt very strongly that we need legislation to protect MPs, particularly female MPs, from vile misogynistic abuse. In his memory, will she assure me that her Bill will honour the spirit of that request?

Nadine Dorries: Sir David was a friend to all of us, and he was very much at the forefront of my mind during the redrafting of this Bill over the last few months. I give my right hon. Friend my absolute assurance on that.

Jim Shannon: A number of constituents have contacted me over the last few months about eating disorders, particularly anorexia and bulimia, and about bullying in schools. Will the Secretary of  State assure me and this House that those concerns will be addressed by this Bill so that my constituents are protected?

Nadine Dorries: They will. Inciting people to take their own life or encouraging eating disorders in anorexia chatrooms—all these issues are covered by the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nadine Dorries: I will take one more intervention.

Jonathan Gullis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I thank her for her written communications regarding Angela Stevens, the mother of Brett, who tragically took his own life having been coerced by some of these vile online sites. The Law Commission considered harmful online communications as part of the Bill’s preparation, and one of its recommendations is to introduce a new offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to adopt that recommendation. Can she say more on that?

Nadine Dorries: Yes. Exactly those issues will be listed in secondary legislation, under “legal but harmful”. I will talk about that further in my speech, but “legal but harmful” focuses on some of the worst harmful behaviours. We are talking not about an arbitrary list, but about incitement to encourage people to take their own life and encouraging people into suicide chatrooms—behaviour that is not illegal but which is indeed harmful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nadine Dorries: I am going to whizz through my speech now in order to allow people who have stayed and want to speak to do so.
As the Minister for mental health for two years, too often, I heard stories such as the one just highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). We have all sat down with constituents and listened as the worst stories any parents could recount were retold: stories of how 14-year-old girls take their own life after being directed via harmful algorithms into a suicide chatroom; and of how a child has been bombarded with pro-anorexia content, or posts encouraging self-harm or cyber-bullying.
School bullying used to stop at the school gate. Today, it accompanies a child home, on their mobile phone, and is lurking in the bedroom waiting when they switch on their computer. It is the last thing a bullied child reads at night before they sleep and the first thing they see when they wake in the morning. A bullied child is no longer bullied in the playground on school days; they are bullied 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Childhood innocence is being stolen at the click of a button. One extremely worrying figure from 2020 showed that 80% of 12 to 15-year-olds had at least one potentially harmful online experience in the previous year.
We also see this every time a footballer steps on to the pitch, only to be subjected to horrific racism online, including banana and monkey emojis. As any female MP in this House will tell you, a woman on social media—I say this from experience—faces a daily barrage of toxic abuse. It is not criticism—criticism is a fair  game—but horrific harassment and serious threats of violence. Trolls post that they hope we get raped or killed, urge us to put a rope around our neck, or want to watch us burn in a car alive—my own particular experience.
All this behaviour is either illegal or, almost without exception, explicitly banned in a platform’s terms and conditions. Commercially, it has to be. If a platform stated openly that it allowed such content on its sites, which advertisers, its financial lifeblood, would knowingly endorse and advertise on it? Which advertisers would do that? Who would openly use or allow their children to use sites that state that they allow illegal and harmful activity? None, I would suggest, and platforms know that. Yet we have almost come to accept this kind of toxic behaviour and abuse as part and parcel of online life. We have factored online abuse and harm into our daily way of life, but it should not and does not have to be this way.
This Government promised in their manifesto to pass legislation to tackle these problems and to make the UK the
“safest place in the world to be online”
especially for children. We promised legislation that would hold social media platforms to the promises they have made to their own users—their own stated terms and conditions—promises that too often are broken with no repercussions. We promised legislation that would bring some fundamental accountability to the online world. That legislation is here in the form of the ground- breaking Online Safety Bill. We are leading the way and free democracies across the globe are watching carefully to see how we progress this legislation.
The Bill has our children’s future, their unhindered development and their wellbeing at its heart, while at the same time providing enhanced protections for freedom of speech. At this point, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors, who have each trodden the difficult path of balancing freedom of speech and addressing widespread harms, including my immediate predecessor and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who worked so hard, prior to my arrival in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with stakeholders and platforms, digging in to identify the scope of the problem.
Let me summarise the scope of the Bill. We have reserved our strongest measures in this legislation for children. For the first time, platforms will be required under law to protect children and young people from all sorts of harm, from the most abhorrent child abuse to cyber-bullying and pornography. Tech companies will be expected to use every possible tool to do so, including introducing age-assurance technologies, and they will face severe consequences if they fail in the most fundamental of requirements to protect children. The bottom line is that, by our passing this legislation, our youngest members of society will be far safer when logging on. I am so glad to see James Okulaja and Alex Holmes from The Diana Award here today, watching from the Gallery as we debate this groundbreaking legislation. We have worked closely with them as we have developed the legislation, as they have dedicated a huge amount of their time to protecting children from online harms. This Bill is for them and those children.
The second part of the Bill makes sure that platforms design their services to prevent them from being abused by criminals. When illegal content does slip through the net, such as child sex abuse and terrorist content, they will need to have effective systems and processes in place to quickly identify it and remove it from their sites. We will not allow the web to be a hiding place or a safe space for criminals. The third part seeks to force the largest social media platforms to enforce their own bans on racism, misogyny, antisemitism, pile-ons and all sorts of other unacceptable behaviour that they claim not to allow but that ruins life in practice. In other words, we are just asking the largest platforms to simply do what they say they will do, as we do in all good consumer protection measures in any other industry. If platforms fail in any of those basic responsibilities, Ofcom will be empowered to pursue a range of actions against them, depending on the situation, and, if necessary, to bring down the full weight of the law upon them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nadine Dorries: I will take just two more interventions and that will be it, otherwise people will not have a chance to speak.

John Hayes: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The internet giants that run the kind of awful practices that she has described have for too long been unaccountable, uncaring and unconscionable in the way they have fuelled every kind of spite and fed every kind of bigotry. Will she go further in this Bill and ensure that, rather like any other publisher, if those companies are prepared to allow anonymous posts, they are held accountable for those posts and subject to the legal constraints that a broadcaster or newspaper would face?

Nadine Dorries: These online giants will be held accountable to their own terms and conditions. They will be unable any longer to allow illegal content to be published, and we will also be listing in secondary legislation offences that will be legal but harmful. We will be holding those tech giants to account.

Munira Wilson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. She talked about how this Bill is going to protect children much more, and it is a welcome step forward. However, does she accept that there are major gaps in this Bill? For instance, gaming is not covered. It is not clear whether things such as virtual reality and the metaverse are going to be covered. [Interruption.] It is not clear and all the experts will tell us that. The codes of practice in the Bill are only recommended guidance; they are not mandatary and binding on companies. That will encourage a race to the bottom.

Nadine Dorries: The duties are mandatory; it is the Online Safety Bill and the metaverse is included in the Bill. Not only is it included, but, moving forward, the provisions in the Bill will allow us to move swiftly with the metaverse and other things. We did not even know that TikTok existed when this Bill started its journey. These provisions will allow us to move quickly to respond.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nadine Dorries: I will take one more intervention, but that is it.

Damian Green: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. One of the most important national assets that needs protecting in this Bill and elsewhere is our reputation for serious journalism. Will she therefore confirm that, as she has said outside this House, she intends to table amendments during the passage of the Bill that will ensure that platforms and search engines that have strategic market status protect access to journalism and content from recognised news publishers, ensuring that it is not moderated, restricted or removed without notice or right of appeal, and that those news websites will be outside the scope of the Bill?

Nadine Dorries: We have already done that—it is already in the Bill.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nadine Dorries: No, I have to continue.
Not only will the Bill protect journalistic content, democratic content and democratic free speech, but if one of the tech companies wanted to take down journalistic content, the Bill includes a right of appeal for journalists, which currently does not exist. We are doing further work on that to ensure that content remains online while the appeal takes place. The appeal process has to be robust and consistent across the board for all the appeals that take place. We have already done more work on that issue in this version of the Bill and we are looking to do more as we move forward.
As I have said, we will not allow the web to be a hiding place or safe space for criminals and when illegal content does slip through the net—such as child sex abuse and terrorist content— online platforms will need to have in place effective systems and processes to quickly identify that illegal content and remove it from their sites.
The third measure will force the largest social media platforms to enforce their own bans on racism, misogyny, antisemitism, pile-ons and all the other unacceptable behaviours. In other words, we are asking the largest platforms to do what they say they will do, just as happens with all good consumer-protection measures in any other industry. Should platforms fail in any of their basic responsibilities, Ofcom will be empowered to pursue a range of actions against them, depending on the situation, and, if necessary, to bring down upon them the full weight of the law. Such action includes searching platforms’ premises and confiscating their equipment; imposing huge fines of up to 10% of their global turnover; pursuing criminal sanctions against senior managers who fail to co-operate; and, if necessary, blocking their sites in the UK.
We know that tech companies can act very quickly when they want to. Last year, when an investigation revealed that Pornhub allowed child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery to be uploaded to its platform, Mastercard and Visa blocked the use of their cards on the site. Lo and behold, threatened with the prospect of losing a huge chunk of its profit, Pornhub suddenly removed nearly 10 million child sexual exploitation videos from its site overnight. These companies have the  tools but, unfortunately, as they have shown time and again, they need to be forced to use them. That is exactly what the Bill will do.
Before I move on, let me point out something very important: this is not the same Bill as the one published in draft form last year. I know that Members throughout the House are as passionate as I am about getting this legislation right, and I had lots of constructive feedback on the draft version of the Bill. I have listened carefully to all that Members have had to say throughout the Bill’s process, including by taking into account the detailed feedback from the Joint Committee, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Petitions Committee. They have spent many hours considering every part of the Bill, and I am extremely grateful for their dedication and thorough recommendations on how the legislation could be improved.
As a result of that feedback process, over the past three months or so I have strengthened the legislation in a number of important ways. There were calls for cyber-flashing to be included; cyber-flashing is now in the Bill. There were calls to ensure that the legislation covered all commercial pornography sites; in fact, we have expanded the Bill’s scope to include every kind of provider of pornography. There were concerns about anonymity, so we have strengthened the Bill so that it now requires the biggest tech platforms to offer verification and empowerment tools for adult users, allowing people to block anonymous trolls from the beginning.
I know that countless MPs are deeply concerned about how online fraud—particularly scam ads—has proliferated over the past few years. Under the new version of the Bill, the largest and highest-risk companies—those that stand to make the most profit—must tackle scam ads that appear on their services.
We have expanded the list of priority offences named on the face of the legislation to include not just terrorism and child abuse imagery but revenge porn, fraud, hate crime, encouraging and assisting suicide, and organised immigration crime, among other offences.
If anyone doubted our appetite to go after Silicon Valley executives who do not co-operate with Ofcom, they will see that we have strengthened the Bill so that the criminal sanctions for senior managers will now come into effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent— I am talking weeks, not years. We have expanded the things for which those senior managers will be criminally liable to cover falsifying data, destroying data and obstructing Ofcom’s access to their premises.
In addition to the regulatory framework in the Bill that I have described, we are creating three new criminal offences. While the regulatory framework is focused on holding companies to account, the criminal offences will be focused on individuals and the way people use and abuse online communications. Recommended by the Law Commission, the offences will address coercive and controlling behaviour by domestic abusers; threats to rape, kill or inflict other physical violence; and the sharing of dangerous disinformation deliberately to inflict harm.
This is a new, stronger Online Safety Bill. It is the most important piece of legislation that I have ever worked on and it has been a huge team effort to get here. I am confident that we have produced something that will protect children and the most vulnerable members of society while being flexible and adaptable enough to meet the challenges of the future.
Let me make something clear in relation to freedom of speech. Anyone who has actually read the Bill will recognise that its defining focus is the tackling of serious harm, not the curtailing of free speech or the prevention of adults from being upset or offended by something they have seen online. In fact, along with countless others throughout the House, I am seriously concerned about the power that big tech has amassed over the past two decades and the huge influence that Silicon Valley now wields over public debate.
We in this place are not the arbiters of free speech. We have left it to unelected tech executives on the west coast to police themselves. They decide who is and who is not allowed on the internet. They decide whose voice should be heard and whose should be silenced—whose content is allowed up and what should be taken down. Too often, their decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent. We are left, then, with a situation in which the president of the United States can be banned by Twitter while the Taliban is not; in which talkRADIO can be banned by YouTube for 12 hours; in which an Oxford academic, Carl Heneghan, can be banned by Twitter; or in which an article in The Mail on Sunday can be plastered with a “fake news” label—all because they dared to challenge the west coast consensus or to express opinions that Silicon Valley does not like.
It is, then, vital that the Bill contains strong protections for free speech and for journalistic content. For the first time, under this legislation all users will have an official right to appeal if they feel their content has been unfairly removed. Platforms will have to explain themselves properly if they remove content and will have special new duties to protect journalistic content and democratically important content. They will have to keep those new duties in mind whenever they set their terms and conditions or moderate any content on their sites. I emphasise that the protections are new. The new criminal offences update section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which were so broad that they interfered with free speech while failing to address seriously harmful consequences.
Without the Bill, social media companies would be free to continue to arbitrarily silence or cancel those with whom they do not agree, without any need for explanation or justification. That situation should be intolerable for anyone who values free speech. For those who quite obviously have not read the Bill and say that it concedes power to big tech companies, I have this to say: those big tech companies have all the power in the world that they could possibly want, right now. How much more power could we possibly concede?
That brings me to my final point. We now face two clear options. We could choose not to act and leave big tech to continue to regulate itself and mark its own homework, as it has been doing for years with predictable results. We have already seen that too often, without the right incentives, tech companies will not do what is needed to protect their users. Too often, their claims about taking steps to fix things are not backed up by genuine actions.
I can give countless examples from the past two months alone of tech not taking online harm and abuse seriously, wilfully promoting harmful algorithms or putting profit before people. A recent BBC investigation  showed that women’s intimate pictures were being shared across the platform Telegram to harass, shame and blackmail women. The BBC reported 100 images to Telegram as pornography, but 96 were still accessible a month later. Tech did not act.
Twitter took six days to suspend the account of rapper Wiley after his disgusting two-day antisemitic rant. Just last week, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate said that it had reported 253 accounts to Instagram as part of an investigation into misogynistic abuse on the platform, but almost 90% remained active a month later. Again, tech did not act.
Remember: we have been debating these issues for years. They were the subject of one of my first meetings in this place in 2005. During that time, things have got worse, not better. If we choose the path of inaction, it will be on us to explain to our constituents why we did nothing to protect their children from preventable risks, such as grooming, pornography, suicide content or cyber-bullying. To those who say protecting children is the responsibility of parents, not the job of the state, I would quote the 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, one of the staunchest defenders of individual freedom. He wrote in “On Liberty” that the role of the state was to fulfil the responsibility of the parent in order to protect a child where a parent could not. If we choose not to act, in the years to come we will no doubt ask ourselves why we did not act to impose fundamental online protections.
However, we have another option. We can pass this Bill and take huge steps towards tackling some of the most serious forms of online harm: child abuse, terrorism, harassment, death threats, and content that is harming children across the UK today. We could do what John Stuart Mill wrote was the core duty of Government. The right to self-determination is not unlimited. An action that results in doing harm to another is not only wrong, but wrong enough that the state can intervene to prevent that harm from occurring. We do that in every other part of our life. We erect streetlamps to make our cities and towns safer. We put speed limits on our roads and make seatbelts compulsory. We make small but necessary changes to protect people from grievous harm. Now it is time to bring in some fundamental protections online.
We have the legislation ready right now in the form of the Online Safety Bill. All we have to do is pass it. I am proud to commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious to the House that we have approximately one hour for Back-Bench contributions and that a great many people want to speak. I warn colleagues that not everybody will have the opportunity and that there will certainly be a time limit, which will probably begin at five minutes.

Lucy Powell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been a busy day, and I will try to keep my remarks short. It is a real   shame that the discussion of an important landmark Bill, with so many Members wanting to contribute, has been squeezed into such a tiny amount of time.
Labour supports the principles of the Online Safety Bill. There has been a wild west online for too long. Huge platforms such as Facebook and Google began as start-ups but now have huge influence over almost every aspect of our lives: how we socialise and shop, where we get our news and views, and even the outcomes of elections and propaganda wars. There have been undoubted benefits, but the lack of regulation has let harms and abuses proliferate. From record reports of child abuse to soaring fraud and scams, from racist tweets to Russia’s disinformation campaigns, there are too many harms that, as a society, we have been unable or unwilling to address.
There is currently no regulator. However, neither the Government nor silicon valley should have control over what we can say and do online. We need strong, independent regulation.

Dan Carden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lucy Powell: I will give way once on this point.

Dan Carden: I am grateful. The Secretary of State talked about getting the tech giants to follow their own rules, but we know from Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, that companies were driving children and adults to harmful content, because it increased engagement. Does that not show that we must go even further than asking them to follow their own rules?

Lucy Powell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to talk about that shortly.
The Online Safety Bill is an important step towards strong, independent regulation. We welcome the Bill’s overall aim: the duty of care framework based on the work of the Carnegie Trust. I agree with the Secretary of State that the safety of children should be at the heart of this regulation. The Government have rightly now included fraud, online pornography and cyber-flashing in the new draft of the Bill, although they should have been in scope all along.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: I am not going to give way, sorry.
Before I get onto the specifics, I will address the main area of contention: the balance between free speech and regulation, most notably expressed via the “legal but harmful” clauses.

Christian Wakeford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lucy Powell: I will give way one last time.

Christian Wakeford: I thank my hon. Friend. The Government have set out the priority offences in schedule 7 to the Bill, but legal harms have clearly not been specified. Given the torrent of racist, antisemitic and misogynistic abuse that grows every single day, does my hon. Friend know why the Bill has not been made more cohesive with a list of core legal harms, allowing for emerging threats to be dealt with in secondary legislation?

Lucy Powell: I will come on to some of those issues. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
I fear the Government’s current solution to the balance between free speech and regulation will please no one and takes us down an unhelpful rabbit hole. Some believe the Bill will stifle free speech, with platforms over-zealously taking down legitimate political and other views. In response, the Government have put in what they consider to be protections for freedom of speech and have committed to setting out an exhaustive list of “legal but harmful” content, thus relying almost entirely on a “take down content” approach, which many will still see as Government overreach.
On the other hand, those who want harmful outcomes addressed through stronger regulation are left arguing over a yet-to-be-published list of Government-determined harmful content. This content-driven approach moves us in the wrong direction away from the “duty of care” principles the Bill is supposed to enshrine. The real solution is a systems approach based on outcomes, which would not only solve the free speech question, but make the Bill overall much stronger.
What does that mean in practice? Essentially, rather than going after individual content, go after the business models, systems and policies that drive the impact of such harms—[Interruption.] The Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), says from a sedentary position that that is what the Bill does, but none of the leading experts in the field think the same. He should talk to some of them before shouting at me.
The business models of most social media companies are currently based on engagement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) outlined. The more engagement, the more money they make, which rewards controversy, sensationalism and fake news. A post containing a racist slur or anti-vax comment that nobody notices, shares or reads is significantly less harmful than a post that is quickly able to go viral. A collective pile-on can have a profoundly harmful effect on the young person on the receiving end, even though most of the individual posts would not meet the threshold of harmful.

Matt Rodda: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Lucy Powell: I will not, sorry. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, who I had the privilege of meeting, cited many examples to the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill of Facebook’s models and algorithms making things much worse. Had the Government chosen to follow the Joint Committee recommendations for a systems-based approach rather than a content-driven one, the Bill would be stronger and concerns about free speech would be reduced.

Damian Collins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: I am sorry, but too many people want to speak. Members should talk to their business managers, who have cut—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman was Chair of the Committee—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way. Let us get on with the debate.

Lucy Powell: The business managers have failed everybody on both sides given the time available.
A systems-based approach also has the benefit of tackling the things that platforms can control, such as how content spreads, rather than what they cannot control, such as what people post. We would avoid the cul-de-sac of arguing over the definitions of what content is or is not harmful, and instead go straight to the impact. I urge the Government to adopt the recommendations that have been made consistently to focus the Bill on systems and models, not simply on content.
Turning to other aspects of the Bill, key issues with its effectiveness remain. The first relates to protecting children. As any parent will know, children face significant risks online, from poor body image, bullying and sexist trolling to the most extreme grooming and child abuse, which is, tragically, on the rise. This Bill is an important opportunity to make the internet a safe place for children. It sets out duties on platforms to prevent children from encountering illegal, harmful or pornographic content. That is all very welcome.
However, despite some of the Government’s ambitious claims, the Bill still falls short of fully protecting children. As the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children argues, the Government have failed to grasp the dynamics of online child abuse and grooming—[Interruption.] Again, I am being heckled from the Front Bench, but if Ministers engage with the children’s charities they will find a different response. For example—[Interruption.] Yes, but they are not coming out in support of the Bill, are they? For example, it is well evidenced that abusers will often first interact with children on open sites and then move to more encrypted platforms. The Government should require platforms to collaborate to reduce harm to children, prevent abuse from being displaced and close loopholes that let abusers advertise to each other in plain sight.
The second issue is illegal activity. We can all agree that what is illegal offline should be illegal online, and all platforms will be required to remove illegal content such as terrorism, child sex abuse and a range of other serious offences. It is welcome that the Government have set out an expanded list, but they can and must go further. Fraud was the single biggest crime in the UK last year, yet the Business Secretary dismissed it as not affecting people’s everyday lives.
The approach to fraud in this Bill has been a bit like the hokey-cokey: the White Paper said it was out, then it was in, then it was out again in the draft Bill and finally it is in again, but not for the smaller sites or the search services. The Government should be using every opportunity to make it harder for scammers to exploit people online, backed up by tough laws and enforcement. What is more, the scope of this Bill still leaves out too many of the Law Commission’s recommendations of online crimes.
The third issue is disinformation. The war in Ukraine has unleashed Putin’s propaganda machine once again. That comes after the co-ordinated campaign by Russia to discredit the truth about the Sergei Skripal poisonings. Many other groups have watched and learned: from  covid anti-vaxxers to climate change deniers, the internet is rife with dangerous disinformation. The Government have set up a number of units to tackle disinformation and claim to be working with social media companies to take it down. However, that is opaque and far from optimal. The only mention of disinformation in the Bill is that a committee should publish a report. That is far from enough.
Returning to my earlier point, it is the business models and systems of social media companies that create a powerful tool for disinformation and false propaganda to flourish. Being a covid vaccine sceptic is one thing, but being able to quickly share false evidence dressed up as science to millions of people within hours is a completely different thing. It is the power of the platform that facilitates that, and it is the business models that encourage it. This Bill hardly begins to tackle those societal and democratic harms.
The fourth issue is online abuse. From racism to incels, social media has become a hotbed for hate. I agree with the Secretary of State that that has poisoned public life. I welcome steps to tackle anonymous abuse. However, we still do not know what the Government will designate as legal but harmful, which makes it very difficult to assess whether the Bill goes far enough, or indeed too far. I worry that those definitions are left entirely to the Secretary of State to determine. A particularly prevalent and pernicious form of online hate is misogyny, but violence against women and girls is not mentioned at all in the Bill—a serious oversight.
The decision on which platforms will be regulated by the Bill is also arbitrary and flawed. Only the largest platforms will be required to tackle harmful content, yet smaller platforms, which can still have a significant, highly motivated, well-organised and particularly harmful user base, will not. Ofcom should regulate based on risk, not just on size.
The fifth issue is that the regulator and the public need the teeth to take on the big tech companies, with all the lawyers they can afford. It is a David and Goliath situation. The Bill gives Ofcom powers to investigate companies and fine them up to 10% of their turnover, and there are some measures to help individual users. However, if bosses in Silicon Valley are to sit up and take notice of this Bill, it must go further. It should include stronger criminal liability, protections for whistleblowers, a meaningful ombudsman for individuals, and a route to sue companies through the courts.
The final issue is future-proofing, which we have heard something about already. This Bill is a step forward in dealing with the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram—although it must be said that many companies have already begun to get their house in order ahead of any legislation—but it will have taken nearly six years for the Bill to appear on the statute book.
Since the Bill was first announced, TikTok has emerged on the scene, and Facebook has renamed itself Meta. The metaverse is already posing dangers to children, with virtual reality chat rooms allowing them to mix freely with predatory adults. Social media platforms are also adapting their business models to avoid regulation; Twitter, for example, says that it will decentralise and outsource moderation. There is a real danger that when the Bill finally comes into effect, it will already be out of date. A duty of care approach, focused on outcomes  rather than content, would create a much more dynamic system of regulation, able to adapt to new technologies and platforms.
In conclusion, social media companies are now so powerful and pervasive that regulating them is long overdue. Everyone agrees that the Bill should reduce harm to children and prevent illegal activity online, yet there are serious loopholes, as I have laid out. Most of all, the focus on individual content rather than business models, outcomes and algorithms will leave too many grey areas and black spots, and will not satisfy either side in the free speech debate.
Despite full prelegislative scrutiny, the Government have been disappointingly reluctant to accept those bigger recommendations. In fact, they are going further in the wrong direction. As the Bill progresses through the House, we will work closely with Ministers to improve and strengthen it, to ensure that it truly becomes a piece of world-leading legislation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: We will begin with a time limit of five minutes, but that is likely to reduce.

Julian Knight: Some colleagues have been in touch with me to ask my view on one overriding matter relating to this Bill: does it impinge on our civil liberties and our freedom of speech? I say to colleagues that it does neither, and I will explain how I have come to that conclusion.
In the mid-1990s, when social media and the internet were in their infancy, the forerunners of the likes of Google scored a major win in the United States. Effectively, they got the US Congress to agree to the greatest “get out of jail free” card in history: namely, to agree that social media platforms are not publishers and are not responsible for the content they carry. That has led to a huge flowering of debate, knowledge sharing and connections between people, the likes of which humanity has never seen before. We should never lose sight of that in our drive to fairly regulate this space. However, those platforms have also been used to cause great harm in our society, and because of their “get out of jail free” card, the platforms have not been accountable to society for the wrongs that are committed through them.
That is quite simplistic. I emphasise that as time has gone by, social media platforms have to some degree recognised that they have responsibilities, and that the content they carry is not without impact on society—the very society that they make their profits from, and that nurtured them into existence. Content moderation has sprung up, but it has been a slow process. It is only a few years ago that Google, a company whose turnover is higher than the entire economy of the Netherlands, was spending more on free staff lunches than on content moderation.
Content moderation is decided by algorithms, based on terms and conditions drawn up by the social media companies without any real public input. That is an inadequate state of affairs. Furthermore, where platforms have decided to act, there has been little accountability, and there can be unnecessary takedowns, as well as harmful content being carried. Is that democratic? Is it transparent? Is it right?
These masters of the online universe have a huge amount of power—more than any industrialist in our history—without facing any form of public scrutiny, legal framework or, in the case of unwarranted takedowns, appeal. I am pleased that the Government have listened in part to the recommendations published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in particular on Parliament’s being given control through secondary legislation over legal but harmful content and its definition—an important safeguard for this legislation. However, the Committee and I still have queries about some of the Bill’s content. Specifically, we are concerned about the risks of cross-platform grooming and bread- crumbing—perpetrators using seemingly innocuous content to trap a child into a sequence of abuse. We also think that it is a mistake to focus on category 1 platforms, rather than extending the provisions to other platforms such as Telegram, which is a major carrier of disinformation. We need to recalibrate to a more risk-based approach, rather than just going by the numbers. These concerns are shared by charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, as the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said.
On a systemic level, consideration should be given to allowing organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation to identify where companies are failing to meet their duty of care, in order to prevent Ofcom from being influenced and captured by the heavy lobbying of the tech industry. There has been reference to the lawyers that the tech industry will deploy. If we look at any newspaper or LinkedIn, we see that right now, companies are recruiting, at speed, individuals who can potentially outgun regulation. It would therefore be sensible to bring in outside elements to provide scrutiny, and to review matters as we go forward.
On the culture of Ofcom, there needs to be greater flexibility. Simply reacting to a large number of complaints will not suffice. There needs to be direction and purpose, particularly with regard to the protection of children. We should allow for some forms of user advocacy at a systemic level, and potentially at an individual level, where there is extreme online harm.
On holding the tech companies to account, I welcome the sanctions regime and having named individuals at companies who are responsible. However, this Bill gives us an opportunity to bring about real culture change, as has happened in financial services over the past two decades. During Committee, the Government should actively consider the suggestion put forward by my Committee—namely, the introduction of compliance officers to drive safety by design in these companies.
Finally, I have concerns about the definition of “news publishers”. We do not want Ofcom to be effectively a regulator or a licensing body for the free press. However, I do not want in any way to do down this important and improved Bill. I will support it. It is essential. We must have this regulation in place.

Eleanor Laing: I call John Nicolson.

John Nicolson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was to wind up for my party, rather than speaking at this juncture.

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman would prefer to save his slot until later—

John Nicolson: I would, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is all right with you.

Eleanor Laing: Then we shall come to that arrangement. I call Dame Margaret Hodge.

Margaret Hodge: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that I will take only three minutes.
The human cost of abuse on the internet is unquantifiable—from self-harm to suicide, grooming to child abuse, and racism to misogyny. A space we thought gave the unheard a legitimate voice has become a space where too many feel forced to stay offline. As a Jewish female politician online, I have seen my identities perversely tied together to discredit my character and therefore silence my voice. I am regularly accused of being a “Zionist hag”, a “paedophile” and a “Nazi”. But this is not just about politicians. We all remember the tsunami of racism following the Euros, and we know women are targeted more online than men. Social media firms will not tackle this because their business model encourages harmful content. Nasty content attracts more traffic; more traffic brings more advertising revenue; and more revenue means bigger profits. Legislation is necessary to make the social media firms act. However, this Bill will simply gather dust if Ofcom and the police remain underfunded. The “polluter pays” principle—that is, securing funding through a levy on the platforms—would be much fairer than taxpayers picking up the bill for corporate failures.
I cherish anonymity for whistleblowers and domestic violence victims—it is vital—but when it is used as a cloak to harm others, it should be challenged. The Government’s halfway measure allows users to choose to block anonymous posts by verifying their own identity. That ignores police advice not to block abusive accounts, as those accounts help to identify genuine threats to individuals, and it ignores the danger of giving platforms the power to verify identities. We should think about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Surely a third party with experience in unique identification should carry out checks on users. Then we all remain anonymous to platforms, but can be traced by law enforcement if found guilty of harmful abuse. We can then name and shame offenders.
On director liability, fines against platforms become a business cost and will not change behaviour, so personal liability is a powerful deterrent. However, enforcing this liability only when a platform fails to supply information to Ofcom is feeble. Directors must be made liable for breaching safety duties.
Finally, as others have said, most regulations apply only to category 1 platforms. Search engines fall through the cracks; BitChute, Gab, 4chan—all escape, but as we saw in the attacks on Pittsburgh’s synagogue and Christchurch’s mosque, all these platforms helped to foster those events. Regulation must be based on risk, not size. Safety should be embedded in any innovative products, so concern about over-regulating innovation is misplaced. This is the beginning of a generational  change. I am grateful to Ministers, because I do think they have listened. If they continue to listen, we can make Britain the safest place online.

John Whittingdale: This Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation, and we are one of the first countries to attempt to bring in controls over content online. I therefore share the view of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that it is a great pity that its Second Reading was scheduled for a day when there is so much other business.
The Bill has been a long time in the preparation. I can remember chairing an inquiry of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2008 on the subject of harmful content online. Since then, we have had a Green Paper, a White Paper, a consultation, a draft Bill, a Joint Committee, and several more Select Committee inquiries. It is important that we get this right, and the Bill has grown steadily, as the Secretary of State outlined. I do not need to add to the reasons why it is important that we control content and protect vulnerable people from online content that is harmful to them.
There are two areas where I want to express a word of caution. First, as the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is very much aware, the Government have an ambition to make the United Kingdom the tech capital of the world. We have been incredibly successful in attracting investment. He will know better than I that the tech industry in Britain is now worth over $1 trillion, and that we have over 100 unicorns, but the Bill creates uncertainty, mainly because so much is subject to secondary legislation and not spelled out in detail in the Bill. This will stifle innovation and growth.
It is fairly obvious which are the main companies that will fall into the category 1 definition. We are told that there may be some 15 to 20. Some of them are certainly obvious. However, I share the view that this needs to be determined more by risk than by reach. A company does not necessarily pose a significant risk simply because it is large. Companies such as Tripadvisor, eBay and Airbnb, which, on the size criteria, might fall within scope of category 1, should not do so. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister can say more about the precise definitions that will determine categories. This is more serious for the category 2 companies; it is estimated that some 25,000 may fall within scope. It is not clear precisely what the obligations on them will be, and that too is causing a degree of uncertainty. It is also unclear whether some parts of a large company with several businesses, such as Amazon, would be in category 1 or category 2, or what would happen if companies grow. Could they, for instance, be re-categorised from 1 to 2? These concerns are being raised by the tech industry, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to talk to techUK, to allay those fears.
The second issue, as has been rightly identified, is the effect on freedom of speech. As has been described, tech platforms already exercise censorship. At the moment, they exercise their own judgment as to what is permissible and what is not, and we have had examples such as YouTube taking down the talkRadio channel. I spent a great deal of time talking to the press and media about the special protections that journalism needs, and I  welcome the progress that has been made in the Bill. It is excellent that journalistic content will be put in a special category. I repeat the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). The Secretary of State made some very welcome comments on, I think, “This Morning” about the introduction of an additional protection so that, if a journalist’s shared content were removed from an online platform, they would need to be informed and able to appeal. That may require additional amendments to the Bill, so perhaps the Minister could say when we are likely to see those.
There is also the concern raised by the periodical publishers that specialist magazines appear to be outside the protection of journalistic content. I hope that that can be addressed, because there are publications that deserve the same level of protection.
There is a wider concern about freedom of speech. The definition “legal but harmful” raises real concerns, particularly given that it is left open to subsequent secondary legislation to set out exactly what the categories will be. There are also widespread concerns that we need to avoid, at all costs, setting a precedent that may be used by others who are more keen to censor discussion online. In particular, clause 103(2)(b) relates to messaging services and can require Ofcom to use accredited technology to identify CSEA material. The Minister will be aware that that matter is also causing concern.

Darren Jones: In the interest of time, I will just pose a number of questions, which I hope the Minister might address in summing up. The first is about the scope of the Bill. The Joint Committee of which I was a member recommended that the age-appropriate design code, which is very effectively used by the Information Commissioner, be used as a benchmark in the Bill, so that any services accessed or likely to be accessed by children are regulated for safety. I do not understand why the Government rejected that suggestion, and I would be pleased to hear from the Minister why they did so.
Secondly, the Bill delegates lots of detail to statutory instruments, codes of practice from the regulator, or later decisions by the Secretary of State. Parliament must see that detail before the Bill becomes an Act. Will the Minister commit to those delegated decisions being published before the Bill becomes an Act? Could he explain why the codes of practice are not being set as mandatory? I do not understand why codes of practice, much of the detail of which the regulator is being asked to set, will not be made mandatory for businesses. How can minimum standards for age or identity verification be imposed if those codes of practice are not made mandatory? Perhaps the Minister could explain.
Many users across the country will want to ensure that their complaints are dealt with effectively. We recommended an ombudsman service that dealt with complaints that were exhausted through a complaints system at the regulated companies, but the Government rejected it. Please could the Minister explain why?
I was pleased that the Government accepted the concept of the ability for a super-complaint to be brought on behalf of groups of users, but the decision as to who will be able a bring a super-complaint has been deferred, subject to a decision by the Secretary of  State. Why, and when will that decision be taken? If the Minister could allude to who they might be, I am sure that would be welcome.
Lastly, there is a number of exemptions and more work to be done, which leaves significant holes in the legislation. There is much more work to be done on clauses 5, 6 and 50—on democratic importance, journalism and the definition of journalism, on the exemptions for news publishers, and on disinformation, which is mentioned only once in the entire Bill. I and many others recognise that these are not easy issues, but they should be considered fully before legislation is proposed that has gaping holes for people who want to get around it, and for those who wish to test the parameters of this law in the courts, probably for many years. All of us, on a cross-party basis in this House, support the Government’s endeavours to make it safe for children and others to be online. We want the legislation to be implemented as quickly as possible and to be as effective as possible, but there are significant concerns that it will be jammed up in the judicial system, where this House is unacceptably giving judges the job of fleshing out the definition of what many of the important exemptions will mean in practice.
The idea that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene with the independent regulator and tell it what it should or should not do obviously undermines the idea of an independent regulator. While Ministers might give assurances to this House that the power will not be abused, I believe that other countries, whether China, Russia, Turkey or anywhere else, will say, “Look at Great Britain. It thinks this is an appropriate thing to do. We’re going to follow the golden precedent set by the UK in legislating on these issues and give our Ministers the ability to decide what online content should be taken down.” That seems a dangerous precedent.

Chris Philp: indicated dissent.

Darren Jones: The Minister is shaking his head, but I can tell him that the legislation does do that, because we looked at this and took evidence on it. The Secretary of State would be able to tell the regulator that content should be “legal but harmful” and therefore should be removed as part of its systems design online. We also heard that the ability to do that at speed is very restricted and therefore the power is ineffective in the first place. Therefore, the Government should evidently change their position on that. I do not understand why, in the face of evidence from pretty much every stakeholder, the Government agree that that is an appropriate use of power or why Parliament would vote that through.
I look forward to the Minister giving his answers to those questions, in the hope that, as the Bill proceeds through the House, it can be tidied up and made tighter and more effective, to protect children and adults online in this country.

Damian Collins: This is an incredibly important Bill. It has huge cross-party support and was subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee, which produced a unanimous report, which shows the widespread feeling in both Houses and on both sides of this Chamber that we should legislate. I do feel, though, that I should respond to some of the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), on the Joint Committee report.
I agree with the hon. Member that, unless this legislation covers the systems of social media companies as well as the content hosted, it will not be effective, but it is my belief that it does that. Throughout the evidence that the Committee took, including from Ofcom and not just the Government, it was stated to us very clearly that the systems of social media companies are within scope and that, in preparing the risk registers for the companies, Ofcom can look at risks. For Facebook, that could include the fact that the news feed recommends content to users, while for someone on TikTok using For You,  it could be the fact that the company is selecting—algorithmically ranking—content that someone might like. That could include, for a teenage girl, content that promoted self-harm that was being actively recommended by the company’s systems, or, as Frances Haugen set out, extremist content and hate speech being actively promoted and recommended by the systems.
That would be in scope. The algorithms are within scope, and part of Parliament job’s will be to ensure on an ongoing basis that Ofcom is using its powers to audit the companies in that way, to gain access to information in that way, and to say that the active promotion of regulated content by a social media company is an offence. In passing this Bill, we expect that that will be fully in scope. If the legislation placed no obligation on a company to proactively identify any copies of content that it had judged should not be there and had taken down, we would have a very ineffective system. In effect, we would have what Facebook does to assess content today. If that was effective, we would not need this legislation, but it is woefully ineffective, so the algorithms and the systems are in scope. The Bill gives Ofcom the power to regulate on that basis, and we have to ensure that it does that in preparing the risk registers.
Following what my Joint Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said, the point about the codes of practice is really important. The regulator sets the codes of practice for companies to follow. The Government set out in their response to the Joint Committee report that the regulator can tell companies if their response is not adequate. If an area of risk has been identified where the company has to create policies to address that risk and the response is not good enough, the regulator can still find the company in breach. I would welcome it if the Minister wished to say more about that, either today or as the Bill goes through the House, because it is really important. The response of a company to a request from the regulator, having identified a risk on its platforms, cannot be: “Oh, sorry, we don’t have a policy on that.” It has to be able to set those policies. We have to go beyond just enforcing the terms of service that companies have created for themselves. Making sure they do what they say they are going to do is really important, as the Secretary of State said, but we should be able to push them to go further.
I agree, though, with the hon. Member for Manchester Central and other hon. Members about regulation being based on risk and not just size. In reality, Ofcom will have to make judgment calls on smaller sites that are posing a huge risk or a new risk that has been identified.
The regulator will have the power to regulate Metaverse and VR platforms. Anything that is a user-to-user service is already in scope of the legislation. The challenge for  the regulator will be in moderating conversations between two people in a virtual room, which is much harder than when people are posting text-based content. The technology will have to adapt to do that, but we should start that journey based on the fact that that is already in scope.
Finally, on the much used expression “legal but harmful”, I am pleased the Government took one of our big recommendations, which is to write more offences clearly into the Bill, so it is clear what is actually being regulated—so promotion of self-harm is regulated content and hate speech is part of the regulated content. The job of the regulator then is to set the threshold where intervention should come and I think that should be based on case law. On many of these issues, such as the abuse of the England footballers after the final of the European championships, people have been sentenced in court for what they did. That creates good guidance and a good baseline for what hate speech is in that context and where we would expect intervention. I think it would be much easier for the Bill, the service users that are regulated and the people who post content, to know what the offences are and where the regulatory standard is. Rather than describing those things as “legal but harmful”, we should describe them as what they are, which is regulated offences based on existing offences in law.
The Government made an important step in responding to say that the Government, in seeking amendment to the codes of practice that bring new offences within scope of these priority areas of harm, should have to go through an affirmative process in both Houses. That is really important. Ultimately, the regulation should be based on our laws and changes should be based on decisions taken in this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes.

Kirsty Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to focus on how people actually use the internet, particularly how young people actually use the internet. I feel, as was suggested in one of the comments in questions earlier, that this Bill and some of the discussion around it misses some of the point and some of the actual ways in which particularly young people use the internet.
We have not mentioned, or I have not heard anyone mention, Discord. I have not heard anyone mention Twitch. I have not heard people talking about how people interact on Fortnite. A significant number of young people use Fortnite to interact with their friends. That is the way they speak to their friends. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this, but you can only change the parental controls on Fortnite to stop your children speaking to everybody; you cannot stop them speaking to everybody but their friends. There are no parental controls on a lot of these sites that parents can adequately utilise. They only have this heavy-handed business where they can ban their child entirely from  doing something, or they are allowed to do everything. I think some bits are missed in this because it does not actually reflect the way young people use the internet.
In the girls’ attitude survey produced by Girlguiding, 71% of the 2,000 girls who were surveyed said that they had experienced harmful content while online. But one of the important things I also want to stress is that a quarter of LGBQ and disabled girls found online forums and spaces an important source of support. So we need to make sure that children and young people have the ability to access those sources of support. Whether that is on forums, or on Fortnite, Minecraft, Animal Crossing or whatever it is they happen to be speaking to their friends on, that is important and key in order for young people to continue to communicate. It has been especially important during the pandemic.
There is at this moment a major parenting knowledge gap. There is a generation of parents who have not grown up using the internet. I was one the first people to grow up using the internet and have kids; they are at the top end of primary school now. Once this generation of kids are adults, they will know how their children are behaving online and what the online world is like because they will have lived through it themselves. The current generation of parents has not. The current generation of parents has this knowledge gap.
I am finding that a lot of my kids’ friends have rules that I consider totally—totally—unacceptable and inappropriate because they do not match how kids actually use the internet and the interactions they are likely to have on there. I asked my kids what they thought was the most important thing, and they said the ability to choose what they see and what they do not see, and who they hear from and who they do not hear from. That was the most important thing to them.
That has been talked about in a lot of the information we have received—the requirement to look at algorithms and to opt in to being served with those algorithms, rather than having an opt-out, as we do with Facebook. Facebook says, “Are you sure you don’t want to see this content any more?” Well, yes, I have clicked that I do not want to see it—of course I do not want to see it any more. Of course I would like to see the things my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) posts and all of the replies he sends to people—I want that to pop up with my notifications—but I should have to choose to do that.
Kids feel like that as well—my kids, and kids up and down the country—because, as has been talked about, once you get into these cycles of seeing inappropriate, harmful, damaging content, you are more likely to be served with more and more of that content. At the very first moment people should be able to say, “Hang on, I don’t want to see any of this”, and when they sign up to a site they should immediately be able to say, “No, I don’t want to see any of this. All I want to do is speak to the people I know or have sent a friend request to and accepted a send request from.” We need to ensure that there are enough safeguards like that in place for children and young people and their parents to be able to make those choices in the knowledge and understanding of how these services will actually be used, rather than MPs who do not necessarily use these services making these decisions. We need to have that flexibility.
My final point is that the internet is moving and changing. Twenty years ago I was going to LAN parties and meeting people I knew from online games. That is still happening today and we are only now getting the legislation here and catching up. It has taken that long for us to get here so this legislation must be fit for the future. It must be flexible enough to work with the new technologies, social media and gaming platforms that are coming through.

Andrew Percy: I, too, regret the short time we have to debate this important Bill this evening. This is much-needed legislation and I agree with many of the comments already made.
These platforms have been warned over the years to take action yet have failed to do so. Their online platforms have remained a safe space for racism, holocaust denial, homophobia, conspiracy theories and general bullying. One of the best things I ever did for my mental health was to leave Twitter, but for many young people that is not an option as it cuts them off from access to their friends and much of what is their society. So I am proud that the Government are taking action on this but, as the Minister knows from my meetings with him alongside the Antisemitism Policy Trust, there are ways in which I think the Bill can be improved.
First, on small, high-harm platforms, I pay tribute to the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which has been leading the charge. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, everybody knows Facebook, Twitter and YouTube but few people are aware of a lot of the smaller platforms such as BitChute, 8kun—previously 8chan—or Minds. These small platforms are a haven for white supremacists, incels, conspiracy theorists and antisemites; it is where they gather, converse and share and spew their hate.
An example of that is a post from the so-called anti-Jewish meme repository on the platform Gab which showed a picture of goblins, in this instance the usual grotesque representation of those age-old Jewish physical stereotypes, alongside the phrase, “Are you ready to die in another Jewish war, Goyim?” That is the sort of stuff that is on these small platforms, and it is not rare; we see it all over. Indeed, many of these small platforms exist purely to spew such hate, but at present, despite the many measures in the Bill that I support, these sites will be sifted by Ofcom into two major categories based on their size and functionality. I met the Minister to discuss this point recently.
The Government have not so far been enthusiastic about risk being a determinant factor for fear that too many of the small platforms would be drawn into scope. That is why I hope that as this Bill progresses the Minister will consider a small amendment to enable Ofcom to have powers to draw the small but high-harm platforms, based on its assessments—the so-called super-complaints that we have heard about or other means— into the category 1 status. That would add a regulatory oversight and burden on those platforms. This is all about putting pressure on them—requiring them to go through more hurdles to frustrate their business model of hate, and making it as uncomfortable as possible  for them. I hope the Minister will look at that as the  Bill progresses.
I am very short of time but I also want to raise the issue of search, which the Minister knows I have raised previously. We in the all-party group against antisemitism found examples in Alexa and other voice-activated search platforms where the responses that come back are deeply offensive and racist. I understand that the relationship with the user in entering into a search is different from having an account with a particular social media platform, but these search engines are providing access to all sorts of grotesque racist and misogynistic content and I hope we can look at that as the Bill progresses.

Luke Pollard: I welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward, and it is because I welcome it that I want to see it strengthened. It seems to be an opportunity for us to get this right and in particular to learn lessons from where we have got it wrong in the past. I want to raise two different types of culture. The first is incel culture, and I would like to relate that to the experience that we had in Keyham, with the massing shooting in Plymouth last year, and the second is the consequences of being Instafamous.
It is just over six months since the tragic shooting in Keyham in which we lost five members of our community. The community feels incredibly strongly that we want to learn the lessons, no matter how painful or difficult they are, to ensure that something like this never happens again. We are making progress, working with the Home Office on gun law changes, in particular on linking medical records and gun certificates. One part is incredibly difficult, and that is addressing incel culture, which has been mentioned from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). It sits in the toxic underbelly of our internet and in many cases, it sits on those smaller platforms to which this Bill will not extend the full obligations. I mention that because it results in real-world experiences.
I cannot allocate responsibility for what happened in the Keyham shooting because the inquest is still under way and the police investigations are ongoing, but it is clear that online radicalisation contributed to it, and many of the sites that are referenced as smaller sites that will not be covered by the legislation contributed perhaps in part to the online radicalisation.
When incel culture leads to violence it is not domestic terrorism; it falls between the stools. It must not fall between the stools of this legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister agreed to meet me and members of the Keyham community to understand how his proposals relate to the learnings that we are coming out with in Keyham to make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again. With the online radicalisation of our young men in particular, it is really important that we understand where the rescue routes are. This is not just about the legislation; it needs to be about how we rescue people from the routes that they are going down. I would like to understand from the Minister how we can ensure that there are rescue routes; that schools, social services and mental health providers can understand how to rescue people from incel culture and the online  radicalisation of incel culture as well as US gun culture—the glorification of guns and the misogynistic culture that exists in this space.
The second point about culture is an important one about how we learn from young people. Plymouth is a brilliant place. It is home to both GOD TV—a global evangelical broadcaster—and to many porn production companies. It is quite an eclectic, creative setting. We need to look at how we can learn from the culture of being Instafamous. Instafamous is something that many of our young people look at from an early age. They look at Body Beautifuls, Perfect Smiles—an existence that is out of reach for many people. In many cases they are viewing the creation of online pornography via sites such as OnlyFans as a natural and logical extension to being Instafamous. It is something that, sadly, can attract a huge amount of income. So young people taking their kit off at an early age, especially in their teenage years, can produce high earnings. I want to see those big companies challenged not to serve links on Instagram profiles to OnlyFans content for under-18s. That sits in a grey area of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at how we can have that as a serious setting so that we can challenge that culture and help build understanding about how Instafamous must mean consent and protection.

Adam Afriyie: Overall, I very much welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming, but none of us here would disagree that we need to protect our children, certainly from pornography and all sorts of harassment and awful things that are on the internet and online communications platforms. There is no argument or pushback there at all. I welcome the age verification side of things. We all welcome that.
The repeal of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a good move. The adjustment of a couple of sections of the Communications Act 2003 is also a really good, positive step, and I am glad that the Bill is before us now. I think pretty much everyone here would agree with the principles of the Bill, and I thank the Government for getting there eventually and introducing it. However, as chair of the freedom of speech all-party parliamentary group I need to say a few words and express a few concerns about some of the detail and some of the areas where the Bill could perhaps be improved still further.
The first point relates to the requirement that social media have regard to freedom of speech. It is very easy, with all the concerns we have—I have them too—to push too hard and say that social media companies should clamp down immediately on anything that could be even slightly harmful, even if it is uncertain what “harmful” actually means. We must not to give them the powers or the incentive through financial penalties to shut down freedom of speech just in case something is seen to be harmful by somebody. As the Bill progresses, therefore, it would be interesting to look at whether there is an area where we can tighten up rights and powers on freedom of speech.
Secondly, there is the huge issue—one or two other Members have raised it—of definitions. Clearly, if we say that something that is illegal should not be there and should disappear, of course we would all agree with  that. If we say that something that is harmful should not be there, should not be transmitted and should not be amplified, we start to get into difficult territory, because what is harmful for one person may not be harmful for another. So, again, we need to take a little more of a look at what we are talking about there. I am often called “Tory scum” online. I am thick-skinned; I can handle it. It sometimes happens in the Chamber here—[Laughter.]—but I am thick-skinned and I can handle it. So, what if there was an option online for me to say, “You know what? I am relaxed about seeing some content that might be a bit distasteful for others. I am okay seeing it and hearing it.”? In academic discourse in particular, it is really important to hear the other side of the argument, the other side of a discussion, the other side of a debate. Out of context, one phrase or argument might be seen to be really harmful to a certain group within society. I will just flag the trans debate. Even the mention of the word trans or the words male and female can really ignite, hurt and harm. We could even argue that it is severe harm. Therefore, we need to be very careful about the definitions we are working towards.
Finally, the key principle is that we should ensure that adults who have agency can make decisions for themselves. I hope social media companies can choose not to remove content entirely or amplify content, but to flag content so that grown-ups with agency like us, like a lot of the population, can choose to opt in or to opt out.

Carla Lockhart: While long overdue, I welcome the Bill and welcome the fact that it goes some way to addressing some of the concerns previously raised in this House. I thank the Minister for his engagement and the manner in which the Government have listened, particularly on the issue of anonymity. While it is not perfect, we will continue to press for the cloak of anonymity, which allows faceless trolls to abuse and cause harm, to be removed.
In building the Bill, a logical cornerstone would be that what is illegal offline—on the street, in the workplace and in the schoolyard—is also illegal online. The level of abuse I have received at times on social media would certainly be a matter for the police if it happened in person. It is wrong that people can get away with it online. However, there are dangers to our right to free speech around regulating content that is legal but deemed harmful to adults. The Bill allows what is legal but harmful to adults to be decided by the Secretary of State. Whatever is included in that category now could be easily expanded in future by regulations, which we all know means limited parliamentary scrutiny. As responsible legislators, we must reflect on how that power could be misused in the future. It could be a tool for repressive censorship and that is surely something neither the Government nor this House would wish to see in a land where freedom of speech is such a fundamental part of what and who we are. Without robust free speech protections, all the weight of the duties on content that is legal but harmful to adults will be pushing in one direction, and sadly, that is censorship. I urge the Government to address that in the Bill.
We also need to look at the weakness of the Bill in relation to the protection, particularly for children and young people, from pornography. It is welcome that  since the publication of the draft Bill, the Government have listened to concerns by introducing part 5. In eight days, it will be the fifth anniversary of the Digital Economy Act 2017 receiving Royal Assent. This Government took the decision not to implement part 3 of that Act. Those of us in the House who support age verification restrictions being placed on pornographic content are justifiably hesitant, wondering whether the Government will let children down again.
It could be 2025 before children are protected through age verification. Even if the Bill becomes law, there is still no certainty that the Government will commence the provisions. It simply cannot be left to the Secretary of State in 2025 to move secondary legislation to give effect to age verification. A commencement clause needs to be placed in the Bill. Children deserve the right to know that this Government will act for them this time.
Furthermore, the Bill needs to be consistent in how  it deals with pornography across parts 3 and 5. Age verification is a simple concept. If a website, part of a website or social media platform hosts or provides pornographic content, a person’s age should be verified before access. If a child went into a newsagents to attempt to buy a pornographic magazine, they would be challenged by the shopkeeper. This goes back to the cornerstone of this issue: illegal offline should mean illegal online. The concept may be simple but the Bill,  as drafted, adds unnecessary complexities. I ask the Minister to act and make parts 3 and 5 similar. We should also give Ofcom more power when it is implementing the Bill.

Dean Russell: I had the great privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill before Christmas and working with the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), fantastic Members from across both Houses and amazing witnesses.
We heard repeated stories of platforms profiting from pain and prejudice. One story that really affected me was that of Zach Eagling, a heroic young boy who has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and who was targeted with flashing images by cruel trolls to trigger seizures. Those seizures have been triggered for other people with epilepsy, affecting their lives and risking not just harm, but potentially death, depending on their situation. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb)—and all members of the Joint Committee, actually, because this was in our report—backed Zach’s law.

Kim Leadbeater: Ten-year-old Zach is a child in my constituency who has, as the hon. Member said, cerebral palsy and epilepsy, and he has been subjected to horrendous online abuse. I hope that the Minister can provide clarity tonight and confirm that Zach’s law—which shows that not just psychological harm and distress, but physical harm can be created as a result of online abuse and trolling—will be covered in the Bill.

Dean Russell: My understanding—hopefully this will be confirmed from the Dispatch Box—is that Zach’s law will be covered by clause 150 in part 10, on communications offences, but I urge the Ministry of Justice to firm that up further.
One thing that really came through for me was the role of algorithms. The only analogy that I can find in the real world for the danger of algorithms is narcotics. This is about organisations that focused on and targeted harmful content to people to get them to be more addicted to harm and to harmful content. By doing that, they numbed the senses of people who were using technology and social media, so that they engaged in practices that did them harm, turning them against not only others, but themselves. We heard awful stories about people doing such things as barcoding—about young girls cutting themselves—which was the most vile thing to hear, especially as a parent myself. There was also the idea that it was okay to be abusive to other people and the fact that it became normalised to hurt oneself, including in ways that can be undoable in future.
That leads on to a point about numbing the senses. I am really pleased that in debating the Bill today we have talked about the metaverse, because the metaverse is not just some random technology that we might talk about; it is about numbing the senses. It is about people putting on virtual reality headsets and living in a world that is not reality, even if it is for a matter of minutes or hours. As we look at these technologies and at virtual reality, my concern is that children and young people will be encouraged to spend more time in worlds that are not real and that could include more harmful content. Such worlds are increasingly accurate in their reality, in the impact that they can have and in their capability for user-to-user engagement.
I therefore think that although at the moment the Bill includes Meta and the metaverse, we need to look at it almost as a tech platform in its own right. We will not get everything right at first; I fully support the Bill as it stands, but as we move forward we will need to continue to improve it, test it and adapt it as new technologies come out. That is why I very much support the idea of a continuing Joint Committee specifically on online safety, so that as time goes by the issues can be scrutinised and we can look at whether Ofcom is delivering in its role. Ultimately, we need to use the Bill as a starting point to prevent harm now and for decades to come.

Liz Twist: I welcome the Bill, which is necessary and overdue, but I would like to raise two issues: how the Bill can tackle suicide and self-harm prevention, and mental health around body image for young people.
First, all suicide and self-harm content should be addressed across all platforms, regardless of size: it is not just the larger platforms that should be considered. The requirement imposed on category 1 platforms relating to legal but harmful suicide and self-harm content should be extended to all platforms, as many colleagues have said. There is a real concern that users will turn from the larger to the smaller platforms, so the issue needs to be addressed. Will the Minister confirm that even smaller platforms will be asked at the start to do an assessment of the risk they pose?
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to secondary legislation, which will be necessary to identify legal but harmful suicide and self-harm content as a real priority   for action. It would be really helpful if we could see that before the legislation is finally passed: it is a key issue and must be an urgent area of work.
Thirdly, I wonder whether the Government will look again at the Law Commission’s proposal that a new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm be created, and that the Bill should make assisting self-harm a priority issue with respect to illegal content. Will the Minister look again at that proposal as the Bill progresses?
I also want to speak about damage to body image, particularly in relation to young people. All of us want to look our best on social media. Young people in particular face a real barrage of digitally enhanced and in many cases unrealistic images that can have a negative effect on body image. Research by the Mental Health Foundation shows that harmful material that damages body image can have a real negative effect on young people’s mental health. As other hon. Members have said, and as most of us know from our own experience, many of the images that we see on social media are driven by algorithms that can amplify the harm to young people. That is particularly concerning as an issue associated with the possible development of eating disorders and mental health conditions.
The Bill does include some provision on algorithms, but more needs to be done to protect our young people from that damage. I encourage the Government to consider amendments that would give more control over new algorithmic content and ensure that the safest settings are the default settings. Users should be given more control over the kind of advertising that they see and receive, to avoid excessive advertising showing perfect bodies. The Government should commit themselves to recognising material that damages body image as a serious form of harm.
There are many more detailed issues that I would have liked to raise tonight, but let me end by saying that we need to give serious consideration to ways of reducing the incidence of suicides and self-harm.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am reluctant to reduce the time limit, but I am receiving appeals for me to try to get more people in, so I will reduce it to three minutes. However, not everyone will have a chance to speak this evening.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the ministerial team and the army of fantastic officials who have brought this enormous and groundbreaking Bill to its current stage. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will be dealing with. No country has attempted to regulate the internet so comprehensively as we have, and I welcome all the improvements that have been made to bring the Bill to this point. Those people have been extremely brave, and they have listened. There are widely competing interests at stake here, and the navigation of the Bill to a position where it has already achieved a degree of consensus is quite remarkable.
The pressure is on now, not least because we have all got into the habit of describing the Bill as the cavalry coming over the hill to solve all the ills of the online  world. It is worth acknowledging from the outset that it will not be the silver bullet or the panacea for all the challenges that we face online. The point is, however, that it needs to be the best possible starting point, the groundworks to face down both the current threats and, more important, the likely challenges of the future. We all have a huge responsibility to work collaboratively, and not to let this process be derailed by side issues or clouded by party politics. Never has the phrase “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good” been more appropriate. So much will be at risk if we do not seize the opportunity to make progress.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, the irony is that this vast and complex legislation is completely unnecessary. Search engines and social media platforms already have the ability to reduce the risks of the online world if they want to, and we have seen examples of that. However, while the bottom line remains their priority—while these precious algorithms remain so protected—the harms that are caused will never be tackled. With that in mind, I am more convinced than ever of the need for platforms to be held to account  and for Ofcom to be given the powers to ensure that they are.
Inevitably, we will need to spend the next few weeks and months debating the various facets of this issue, but today I want to underline the bigger picture. It has always been an overarching theme that protecting children must be a top priority. One of the toughest meetings that I had as Digital Minister was with Ian Russell, whose 14-year-old daughter Molly took her own life after reading material promoting suicide and self-harm on Instagram. That is a conversation that brings a chill to the heart of any parent. Children are so often the victims of online harms. During lockdown, 47% of children said they had seen content that they wished they had not seen. Over a month-long period, the Internet Watch Foundation blocked at least 8.8 million attempts by UK internet users to access videos and images of children suffering sexual abuse.
There is so much at stake here, and we need to work together to ensure that the Bill is the very best that it can possibly be.

Jamie Stone: Obviously I, and my party, support the thrust of the Bill. The Government have been talking about this since 2018, so clearly time is of the essence.
Members have referred repeatedly to the slight vagueness of the definitions currently in the Bill—words such as “harms”, for instance—so I wanted to examine this from a “first principles” point of view. In another place, and almost in another life, and for four long years—perhaps as a punishment brief—I was made the Chairman of Subordinate Legislation Committee in the Scottish Parliament, so without bragging terribly much, I can say that there is nothing I do not know about affirmative and negative resolutions and everything to do with statutory instruments. You could call me a statutory instrument wonk. What I do know, and I do not think it is very different from discussion here, is that instruments come and go; they are not on the face of a Bill, because they are secondary legislation; and, by and large, ordinary, run-of-the-mill Members of Parliament do not take a  huge amount of interest in them. The fact is, however, that the powers that will be granted to the Secretary of State to deliver definitions by means of subordinate legislation—statutory instruments—concern me slightly.
Reference has been made to how unfortunate it would be if the Secretary of State could tell the regulator what the regulator was or was not to do, and to the fact that other countries will look at what we do and, hopefully, see it as an example of how things should be done on a worldwide basis. Rightly or wrongly, we give ourselves the name of the mother of Parliaments. The concept of freedom of speech is incredibly important to the way we do things in this place and as a country. When it comes to the definition of what is bad, what is good, what should be online and what should not, I would feel happier if I could see that all 650 Members of Parliament actually understood and owned those definitions, because that is fundamental to the concept of freedom of speech. I look forward to seeing what comes back, and I have no reason to think that the Government are unsympathetic to the points that I am making. This is about getting the balance right.
Finally, in the short time available, I want to make two last points. My party is very keen on end-to-end encryption, and I need reassurance that that remains a possibility. Secondly, on the rules governing what is right and what is wrong for the press, the seven criteria would, as I read them, still allow a channel that I am not keen on, the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today, to broadcast, and allow my former colleague, the former First Minister of Scotland—this is no reflection on the Scottish National party—to broadcast his nonsense. That has now been banned, but the rules, as I see them, would allow Russia Today to broadcast.

Saqib Bhatti: I am a great believer in the good that social media has done over the last few decades. It has transformed the way we interact, share ideas and stay connected. Social media has allowed a global conversation about global challenges such as climate change, poverty and even the conflict that we are witnessing in Ukraine. However, there is a dark side to social media, and I would be surprised if there were any Member of this House who had not experienced some form of it. The online world has become like the wild west: anything goes. Indeed, it was just last year when the whole country was gripped by the success of our football team in the Euros, and as I sadly watched us lose another penalty shoot-out, I turned to my wife and said, “You know what’s going to happen now, don’t you?” And it did. The three players who missed penalties, all young black men, were subjected to disgusting racist abuse. Monkey emojis were used to taunt them, and were not taken down because the Instagram algorithm did not deem that to be racism. Abuse on Twitter was rife, and the scale of it was so large that it restarted a national conversation, which I am sad to say we have had many times before.
On the back of that, I, along with 50 of my colleagues, wrote to the major social media companies: Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and TikTok. We asked for three things: that all accounts be verified; that the algorithm be adjusted with human interaction to account for differences in languages; and that there be a “three strikes and you’re out” policy for serial offenders, so  that they knew that they would not be allowed to get away with abuse. Unfortunately, not all the companies responded, which shows how much respect they have for our democratic processes and for the moral duty to do the right thing. Those that did respond took long enough to do so, and took the view that they were already doing enough. Clearly, anyone can go on social media today and see that that is not true. It is not that the companies are burying their head in the sand; it is just not very profitable for them to make a change. If they had the will to do so, they certainly have the skill, innovative ability and resources to make it happen.
I fully accept that, in this legislation, the Government have taken a different approach, and there are clearly different ways to skin this cat. The 10% of turnover for fines, the clarity on what is allowed in companies’ terms and conditions, and effective enforcement may well draw a clear line in the sand. I call on the social media companies to heed the message sent by 50 of my colleagues, and to once again recognise their moral duty to be positive and good players in society. We have an opportunity today to set a standard, so that when an aspiring young boy or girl wants to be in the public eye, whether as an athlete, a media star or a politician, they will no longer think that being abused online is an inevitable consequence of that choice.

Sharon Hodgson: I speak in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which I set up over 10 years ago. The APPG shines a light on ticket abuse and campaigns to protect fans who are purchasing event tickets from being scammed and ripped off, often by the large-scale ticket touts that dominate resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub. The APPG works with experts in the field such as FanFair Alliance, a music industry campaign, and the Iridium Consultancy to tackle industrial-scale ticket touting. I hope that when this legislation is reviewed in Committee, those organisations will be called on to share their expertise in this area.
Sadly, online ticket fraud is absolutely rife. Despite some regulatory and legislative improvements, not least in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, too many fans are still being scammed on a regular basis. The Bill, as it stands, includes a major loophole that means people will not be properly protected from online fraud. Search engines such as Google are not currently covered by the requirements on fraudulent advertising. A key issue in the ticketing market is how websites that allow fraudulent tickets to be sold often take out paid ads with Google that appear at the top of the search results. This gives the false impression to consumers that these sites are official ticket outlets. People mistakenly believe that only authorised ticket outlets can advertise on Google—people trust Google—and they are scammed as a result.
The Times reported last year that Google was taking advertising money from scam websites selling Premier League football tickets, even though the matches were taking place behind closed doors during lockdown—you couldn’t make it up. The Online Safety Bill needs to ensure that consumers are provided with much greater protection and that Google is forced to take greater  responsibility for who it allows to advertise. If the Bill took action, online ticket fraud would be drastically reduced. With £2.3 billion lost to online fraud in the UK last year, it is very much needed.
It is also important to remember the human side of online fraud. Victims go through intense stress, as they are not only scammed out of their money but feel duped, stupid and humiliated. There cannot be a Member of this House who has not had to support a constituent devastated by online fraud. I have come across many stories, including one of an elderly couple who bought two tickets to see their favourite artist to celebrate their 70th wedding anniversary. When they arrived at the venue, they were turned away and told that they had been sold fake tickets. I have a lot more to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think you get the drift.

Maria Miller: For too long, the tech giants have been able to dismiss the harms they create for the people we represent because they do not take seriously their responsibility for how their products are designed and used, which is why this legislation is vital.
The Bill will start to change the destructive culture in the tech industry. We live simultaneously in online and offline worlds, and we expect the rules and the culture to be the same in both, but at the moment, they are not. When I visited the big tech companies in Silicon Valley as Secretary of State in 2014 to talk about online moderation, which was almost completely absent at that stage, and child abuse images, which were not regularly removed, I rapidly concluded that the only way to solve the problem and the cultural deficit I encountered would be to regulate. I think this Bill has its roots in those meetings, so I welcome it and the Government’s approach.
I am pleased to see that measures on many of the issues on which I have been campaigning in the years since 2014 have come to fruition in this Bill, but there is still room for improvement. I welcome the criminalisation of cyber-flashing, and I pay tribute to Grazia, Clare McGlynn and Bumble for all their work with me and many colleagues in this place.

Wera Hobhouse: Scotland banned cyber-flashing in 2010, but that ban includes a motivation test, rather than just a consent test, so a staggering 95% of cyber-flashing goes unpunished. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we should not make the same mistake?

Maria Miller: I will come on to that shortly, and the hon. Lady knows I agree with her. This is something the Government need to take seriously.
The second thing I support in this Bill is limiting anonymous online abuse. Again, I pay tribute to the Football Association, with which I have worked closely, Glitch, the Centenary Action Group, Compassion in Politics, Hope not Hate and Kick It Out. They have all done a tremendous job, working with many of us in this place, to get to this point.
Finally, I support preventing children from accessing pornography, although I echo what we heard earlier about it being three years too late. It is shameful that this measure was not enacted earlier.
The Minister knows that three demands are coming his way from me. We need to future-proof our approach to the law in this area. Tech moves quickly—quicker than the Government’s approach to legislation, which leaves us playing whack-a-mole. The devious methods of causing harm change rapidly, as do the motivations of perpetrators, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). What stays the same is the lack of consent from victims, so will the Government please look at that as a way of future-proofing our law? A worrying example of that is deepfake technology that creates pornographic images of women. That  is currently totally lawful. Nudification software is commercially available and uses images—only of women —to create nude images. I have already stated publicly that that should be banned. It has been in South Korea and Taiwan, yet our law is playing catch-up.
The second issue that the Government need to address is the fact that they are creating many more victims as a result of this Bill. We need to make sure that victim support is in place to augment the amazing work of organisations such as the Revenge Porn Helpline. Finally, to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), let me say that this is a complex area, as we are proving with every speech in this debate. I pay tribute to the Select Committee Chair, who is no longer in his place, and the Joint Committee Chair, but I believe that we need a joint standing committee to scrutinise the implementation of this Bill when it is enacted. This is a world-class piece of legislation to change culture, but we also need other countries to adopt a similar approach. A global approach is needed if this is to work to end the wild west.

Gavin Robinson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and a number of contributions this evening chime with my view. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) outlined our party’s broad support for the Bill; however, she and the hon. Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) all raised concerns that can be ironed out and worked upon as the Bill progresses, but that are worthy of reflection, from a principle perspective, at this stage. My hon. Friend rightly said that we should not ban online that which is legal offline. That issue is causing consternation and concern, and it needs to be reflected on and thought through.
There was a chink of light in the exchange between the Minister and the Chair of the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who said that we want to, and should, be talking about regulating in the online domain those things that are offences offline. That is what we should be doing, not engaging in discussions about ill-defined or non-defined “legal but harmful” content. We do not know what that is. In this Bill, we are conferring significant power on the Secretary of State, not to decide that, but to bring that proposal forward through a mechanism that does not afford the greatest level of parliamentary scrutiny, as we know. This debate has been curtailed to two and a half hours, and a debate on a statutory instrument on what is legal but harmful will be 90 minutes long, and there will be no ability to amend that instrument.
There has been discussion about journalists. It is right that there should be protections for them, for democratic content and for politicians. However, article 10 of the Human Rights Act does not distinguish between the average Joe and somebody who is providing academic or journalistic content, so should we? Is that the right step? It is right that we provide protection for those individuals, but what about anyone else who wishes to enjoy freedom of expression in the online domain? It has been said that there is a right of appeal, and yes, there is—to an offshored company that marks its own homework and is satisfied with the action it has taken. But it will have removed the journalist or individual’s content, and they will have suffered the consequence, with no recourse. They cannot take a judicial review against such a company, and an individual will not be able to go to Ofcom either; it will not be interested unless a super entity or a super-class complaint is involved. There is no recourse here. Those are the sorts of issues we will have to grapple with. There are fines for the companies here, but what about recourse for the individual?

Robert Jenrick: In the one minute you have given me to speak in this debate, let me make three brief points, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I come to this Bill with concerns about its impact on freedom of speech. I am grateful for the reassurances I have received already, and will be following how we manage journalistic content, in particular, in order to protect that in the Bill.
Secondly, I am concerned about the Bill’s impact on the ability of us all to tackle the abuse of the power that social media companies have more broadly. The Bill does not contain measures to increase competition, to enable small businesses in this country to prosper and to ensure that the social media platforms do not crowd out existing businesses. I have been assured that a second Bill will follow this one and will tackle that issue, but in recent days I have heard reports in the press that that Bill will not go forward because of a lack parliamentary time. I would be grateful if the Minister could say when he responds to the debate that that Bill will proceed, because it is an extremely important issue.

John Nicolson: Everyone wants to be safe online and everyone wants to keep their children safe online but, from grooming to religious radicalisation and from disinformation to cruel attacks on the vulnerable, the online world is far from safe. That is why we all agree that we need better controls while we preserve all that is good about the online world, including free speech.
This Bill is an example of how legislation can benefit from a collegiate, cross-party approach. I know because I have served on the Select Committee and the Joint Committee, both of which produced reports on the Bill. The Bill is ambitious and much of it is good, but there are some holes in the legislation and we must make important improvements before it is passed.

Debbie Abrahams: Does the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, agree, having   listened to the evidence of the whistleblower Frances Haugen about how disinformation was used in the US Capitol insurrection, that it is completely inadequate that there is only one clause on the subject in the Bill?

John Nicolson: Yes, and I shall return to that point later in my speech.
The Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill need to be addressed. From interested charities to the chief executive of Ofcom, there is consensus that the powers of the Secretary of State in the legislation are too wide. Child safety campaigners, human rights groups, women and girls’ charities, sports groups and democracy reform campaigners all agree that the Secretary of State’s powers threaten the independence of the regulator. That is why both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee have, unanimously and across party lines, recommended reducing the proposed powers.
We should be clear about what exactly the proposed powers will do. Under clause 40, the Secretary of State will be able to modify the draft codes of practice, thus allowing the UK Government a huge amount of power over the independent communications regulator, Ofcom. The Government have attempted to play down the powers, saying that they would be used only in “exceptional circumstances”, but the word “exceptional” is nebulous. How frequent is exceptional? All we are told is that the exceptional circumstances could reflect changing Government “public policy”. That is far too vague, so perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify the difference between public policy and Government policy and give us some further definition of “exceptional”.
While of course I am sure Members feel certain that the current Secretary of State would exercise her powers in a calm and level-headed way, imagine if somebody intemperate held her post or—heaven forfend—a woke, left-wing snowflake from the Labour Benches did. The Secretary of State should listen to her own MPs and reduce her powers in the Bill.
Let me turn to misinformation and disinformation. The Bill aims not only to reduce abuse online but to reduce harm more generally. That cannot be done without including in the Bill stronger provisions on disinformation. As a gay man, I have been on the receiving end of abuse for my sexuality, and I have seen the devasting effect that misinformation and disinformation have had on my community. Disinformation has always been weaponised to spread hate; however, the pervasive reach of social media makes disinformation even more dangerous.
The latest battle ground for LGBT rights has seen an onslaught against trans people. Lies about them and their demand for enhanced civil rights have swirled uncontrollably. Indeed, a correspondent of mine recently lamented “trans funding” in the north-east of Scotland, misreading and misunderstanding and believing it to involve the compulsory regendering of retiring oil workers in receipt of transitional funding from the Scottish Government. That is absurd, of course, but it says something about the frenzied atmosphere stirred up by online transphobes.
The brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, with lies spewed by the Russian Government and their media apologists, has, like the covid pandemic, illustrated some  of the other real-world harms arising from disinformation. It is now a weapon of war, with serious national security implications, yet the UK Government still do not seem to be taking it seriously enough. Full Fact, the independent fact-checking service, said that there is currently no credible plan to tackle disinformation. The Government may well argue that disinformation will fall under the false communications provision in clause 151, but in practice it sets what will likely be an unmeetable bar for services. As such, most disinformation will be dealt with as harmful content.
We welcome the Government’s inclusion of functionality in the risk assessments, which will look not just at content but how it spreads. Evidence from the two Committees shows that the dissemination of harm is as important as the content itself, but the Government should be more explicit in favouring content-neutral modes for reducing disinformation, as this will have less of an impact on freedom of speech. That was recommended by the Facebook whistleblowers Sophie Zhang and Frances Haugen.

Deidre Brock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Nicolson: No, I will make some progress, if I may.
A vital tool in countering disinformation is education, and Estonia—an early and frequent victim of Russian disinformation—is a remarkable case study. That is why the Government’s decision to drop Ofcom’s clause 104 media duties is perplexing. Media literacy should be a shared responsibility for schools, Government, and wider society. Spreading and enhancing media literacy should be up to not just Ofcom, but the larger platforms too. Ofcom should also be allowed to break platform terms and conditions for the purposes of investigation. For example, it would currently be unable to create fake profiles to analyse various companies’ behaviour, such as their response to abuse. It would empower the regulator.
Various issues arise when trying to legislate for harm that is not currently illegal. This is challenging for us as legislators since we do not know exactly what priority harms will be covered by secondary legislation, but we would like assurances from the Government that Zach’s law, as it has come to be known, will become a standalone offence. Vicious cowards who send seizure-inducing flashing images to people with epilepsy to trigger seizures must face criminal consequences. The Minister told me in a previous debate that this wicked behaviour will now be covered by the harmful communications offence under clause 150, but until a specific law is on the statute book, he will, I imagine, understand families’ desire for certainty.
Finally, I turn to cross-platform abuse. There has been a terrifying increase in online child abuse over the past three years. Grooming offences have increased by 70% in that period. The Select Committee and the Joint Committee received a host of recommendations which, disappointingly, seem to have been somewhat ignored by the Government. On both Committees, we have been anxious to reduce “digital breadcrumbing”, which is where paedophiles post images of children which may look benign and will not, therefore, be picked up by scanners. However, the aim is to induce children, or to encourage other paedophiles, to leave the regulated site  and move to unregulated sites where they can be abused with impunity. I urge the Secretary of State to heed the advice of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Without enacting the measures it recommends, children are at ever greater risk of harm.
The House will have noted that those on the SNP Benches have engaged with the Government throughout this process. Indeed, I am the only Member to have sat on both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee as this Bill has been considered and our reports written. It has been a privilege to hear from an incredible range of witnesses, some of whom have displayed enormous bravery in giving their testimony.
We want to see this legislation succeed. That there is a need for it is recognised across the House—but across the House, including on the Tory Benches, there is also recognition that the legislation can and must be improved. It is our intention to help to improve the legislation without seeking party advantage. I hope the Secretary of State will engage in the same constructive manner.

Alex Davies-Jones: It is an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition. Sadly, there is so little time for the debate that there is much that we will not even get to probe, including any mention of the Government’s underfunded and ill-thought-through online media strategy.
However, we all know that change and regulation of the online space are much needed, so Labour welcomes this legislation even in its delayed form. The current model, which sees social media platforms and tech giants making decisions about what content is hosted and shared online, is simply failing. It is about time that that model of self-regulation, which gives too much control to Silicon Valley, was challenged.
Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) said, Labour broadly supports the principles of the Bill and welcomes some aspects of the Government’s approach, including the duty of care frameworks and the introduction of an independent regulator, Ofcom. It cannot and should not be a matter for the Government of the time to control what people across the UK are able to access online. Labour will continue to work hard to ensure that Ofcom remains truly independent of political influence.
We must also acknowledge, however, that after significant delays this Bill is no longer world leading. The Government first announced their intention to regulate online spaces all the way back in 2018. Since then, the online space has remained unregulated and, in many cases, has perpetuated dangerous and harmful misinformation with real-world consequences. Colleagues will be aware of the sheer amount of coronavirus vaccine disinformation so easily accessed by millions online at the height of the pandemic. Indeed, in many respects, it was hard to avoid.
More recently, the devastating impact of state disinformation at the hands of Putin’s regime has been clearer than ever, almost two years after Parliament’s own Intelligence and Security Committee called Russian influence in the UK “the new normal”.

Deidre Brock: Does the hon. Lady share my disappointment and concern that the Bill does nothing to address misinformation and disinformation in political advertising? A rash of very aggressive campaign groups   emerged before the last Scottish Parliament elections, for example; they spent heavily on online political advertising, but were not required to reveal their political ties or funding sources. That is surely not right.

Alex Davies-Jones: I share the hon. Lady’s concern. There is so much more that is simply missing from this Bill, which is why it is just not good enough. We have heard in this debate about a range of omissions from the Bill and the loopholes that, despite the years of delay, have still not been addressed by the Government. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for pointing those out. It is a shame that we are not able to address them individually here, but we will probe those valued contributions further in the Bill Committee.
Despite huge public interest and a lengthy prelegislative scrutiny process, the Government continue to ignore many key recommendations, particularly around defining and regulating both illegal and legal but harmful content online. The very nature of the Bill and its heavy reliance on secondary legislation to truly flesh out the detail leaves much to be desired. We need to see action now if we are truly to keep people safe online.
Most importantly, this Bill is an opportunity, and an important one at that, to decide the kind of online world our children grow up in. I know from many across the House that growing up online as children do now is completely unimaginable. When I was young, we played Snake on a Nokia 3310, and had to wait for the dial-up and for people to get off the phone in order to go online and access MSN, but for people today access to the internet, social media and everything that brings is a fundamental part of their lives.
Once again, however, far too much detail, and the specifics of how this legislation will fundamentally change the user experience, is simply missing from the Bill. When it comes to harmful content that is not illegal, the Government have provided no detail. Despite the Bill’s being years in the making, we are no closer to understanding the impact it will have on users.
The Bill in its current draft has a huge focus on the tools for removing and moderating harmful content, rather than ensuring that design features are in place to make services systematically safer for all of us. The Government are thus at real risk of excluding children from being able to participate in the digital world freely and safely. The Bill must not lock children out of services they are entitled to use; instead, it must focus on making those services safe by design.
I will push the Minister on this particular point. We are all eager to hear what exact harms platforms will have to take steps to address and mitigate. Will it be self-harm? Will it perhaps be content promoting eating disorders, racism, homophobia, antisemitism and misogyny? One of the key problems with the Bill is the failure to make sure that the definitions of “legal but harmful” content are laid out within it. Will the Minister therefore commit to amending the Bill to address this and to allow for proper scrutiny? As we have heard, the Government have also completely failed to address what stakeholders term the problem of breadcrumbing. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps the Government will be taking to address this issue, as there is clearly a loophole in the Bill that would allow this harmful practice to continue.
As we have heard, the gaps in the Bill, sadly, do not end there. Women and girls are disproportionately likely to be affected by online abuse and harassment. Online violence against women and girls is defined as including but not limited to
“intimate image abuse, online harassment, the sending of unsolicited explicit images, coercive ‘sexting’, and the creation and sharing of ‘deepfake’ pornography.”
This Bill is an important step forward but it will need significant strengthening to make online spaces safe for women and girls. While we welcome the steps by the Government to include cyber-flashing in the Bill, it must go further in other areas. Misogyny should be included as a harm to adults that online platforms have a duty to prevent from appearing on them. As colleagues will be aware, Instagram has been completely failing to tackle misogynistic abuse sent via direct message. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate has exposed what it terms an “epidemic of misogynistic abuse”, 90% of which has been completely and utterly ignored by Instagram, even when it has been reported to moderators. The Government must see sense and put violence against women and girls into the Bill, and it must also form a central pillar of regulation around legal but harmful content. Will the Minister therefore commit to at least outlining the definitions of “legal but harmful” content, both for adults and children, in the Bill?
Another major omission from the Bill in as currently drafted is its rather arbitrary categorisation of platforms based on size versus harm. As mentioned by many hon. Members, the categorisation system as it currently stands will completely fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet. Thanks to the fantastic work of organisations such as Hope not Hate and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, we know that smaller platforms such as 4chan and BitChute have significant numbers of users who are highly motivated to promote extremely dangerous content. The Minister must accept that his Department has been completely tone-deaf on this particular point, and—he must listen to what hon. Members have said today—its decision making utterly inexplicable. Rather than an arbitrary size cut-off, the regulator must instead use risk levels to determine which category a platform should fall into so that harmful and dangerous content does not slip through the net. Exactly when will the Minister’s Department publish more information on the detail around this categorisation system? Exactly what does he have to say to those people, including many Members here today, who have found themselves the victim of abusive content that has originated on these hate-driven smaller platforms? How will this Bill change their experience of being online? I will save him the energy, because we all know the real answer: it will do little to change the situation.
This Bill was once considered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve internet safety for good, and Labour wants to work with the Government to get this right. Part of our frustration is due to the way in which the Government have failed to factor technological change and advancement—which, as we all know, and as we have heard today, can be extremely rapid—into the workings of this Bill. While the Minister and I disagree on many things, I am sure that we are united in saying that no one can predict the future, and that is not  where my frustrations lie. Instead, I feel that the Bill has failed to address issues that are developing right now—from developments in online gaming to the expansion of the metaverse. These are complicated concepts but they are also a reality that we as legislators must not shy away from.
The Government have repeatedly said that the Bill’s main objective is to protect children online, and of course it goes without saying that Labour supports that. Yet with the Bill being so restricted to user-to-user services, there are simply too many missed opportunities to deal with areas where children, and often adults, are likely to be at risk of harm. Online gaming is a space that is rightly innovative and fast-changing, but the rigid nature of how services have been categorised will soon mean that the Bill is outdated long before it has had a chance to have a positive impact. The same goes for the metaverse.
While of course Labour welcomes the Government’s commitment to prevent under-18s from accessing pornography online, the Minister must be realistic. A regime that seeks to ban rather than prevent is unlikely to ever be able to keep up with the creative, advanced nature of the tech industry. For that reason, I must press the Minister on exactly how this Bill will be sufficiently flexible and future-proofed to avoid a situation whereby it is outdated by the time it finally receives Royal Assent. We must make sure that we get this right, and the Government know that they could and can do more. I therefore look forward to the challenge and to working with colleagues across the House to strengthen this Bill throughout its passage.

Chris Philp: The piece of legislation before the House this evening is truly groundbreaking, because no other jurisdiction anywhere in the world has attempted to legislate as comprehensively as we are beginning to legislate here. For too long, big tech companies have exposed children to risk and harm, as evidenced by the tragic suicide of Molly Russell, who was exposed to appalling content on Instagram, which encouraged her, tragically, to take her own life. For too long, large social media firms have allowed illegal content to go unchecked online.

Richard Burgon: I have spoken before about dangerous suicide-related content online. The Minister mentions larger platforms. Will the Government go away and bring back two amendments based on points made by the Samaritans? One would bring smaller platforms within the scope of sanctions, and the second would make the protective aspects of the Bill cover people who are over 18, not just those who are under 18. If the Government do that, I am sure that it will be cause for celebration and that Members on both sides of the House will give their support.

Chris Philp: It is very important to emphasise that, regardless of size, all platforms in the scope of the Bill are covered if there are risks to children.
A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), have raised the issue of small platforms that are  potentially harmful. I will give some thought to how the question of small but high-risk platforms can be covered. However, all platforms, regardless of size, are in scope with regard to content that is illegal and to content that is harmful to children.
For too long, social media firms have also arbitrarily censored content just because they do not like it. With the passage of this Bill, all those things will be no more, because it creates parliamentary sovereignty over how the internet operates, and I am glad that the principles in the Bill command widespread cross-party support.
The pre-legislative scrutiny that we have gone through has been incredibly intensive. I thank and pay tribute to the DCMS Committee and the Joint Committee for their work. We have adopted 66 of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. The Bill has been a long time in preparation. We have been thoughtful, and the Government have listened and responded. That is why the Bill is in good condition.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Philp: I must make some progress, because I am almost out of time and there are lots of things to reply to.
I particularly thank previous Ministers, who have done so much fantastic work on the Bill. With us this evening are my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but not with us this evening are my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who I think is in America, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), all of whom showed fantastic leadership in getting the Bill to where it is today. It is a Bill that will stop illegal content circulating online, protect children from harm and make social media firms be consistent in the way they handle legal but harmful content, instead of being arbitrary and inconsistent, as they are at the moment.

Luke Evans: rose—

Munira Wilson: rose—

Chris Philp: I have so many points to reply to that I have to make some progress.
The Bill also enshrines, for the first time, free speech—something that we all feel very strongly about—but it goes beyond that. As well as enshrining free speech in clause 19, it gives special protection, in clauses 15 and 16, for content of journalistic and democratic importance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in opening the debate, we intend to table a Government amendment—a point that my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and for Ashford (Damian Green) asked me to confirm—to make sure that journalistic content cannot be removed until a proper right of appeal has taken place. I am pleased to confirm that now.
We have made many changes to the Bill. Online fraudulent advertisers are now banned. Senior manager liability will commence immediately. Online porn of all kinds, including commercial porn, is now in scope. The  Law Commission communication offences are in the Bill. The offence of cyber-flashing is in the Bill. The priority offences are on the face of the Bill, in schedule 7. Control over anonymity and user choice, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) in her ten-minute rule Bill, is in the Bill. All those changes have been made because this Government have listened.
Let me turn to some of the points made from the Opposition Front Bench. I am grateful for the in-principle support that the Opposition have given. I have enjoyed working with the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, and I look forward to continuing to do so during the many weeks in Committee ahead of us, but there were one or two points made in the opening speech that were not quite right. This Bill does deal with systems and processes, not simply with content. There are risk assessment duties. There are safety duties. There are duties to prevent harm. All those speak to systems and processes, not simply content. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Joint Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for confirming that in his excellent speech.
If anyone in this House wants confirmation of where we are on protecting children, the Children’s Commissioner wrote a joint article with the Secretary of State in the Telegraph—I think it was this morning—confirming her support for the measures in the Bill.
When it comes to disinformation, I would make three quick points. First, we have a counter-disinformation unit, which is battling Russian disinformation night and day. Secondly, any disinformation that is illegal, that poses harm to children or that comes under the definition of “legal but harmful” in the Bill will be covered. And if that is not enough, the Minister for Security and Borders, who is sitting here next to me, intends to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to cover counter-hostile state threats more generally. This matter will be addressed in the Bill that he will prepare and bring forward.
I have only four minutes left and there are so many points to reply to. If I do not cover them all, I am very happy to speak to Members individually, because so many important points were made. The right hon. Member for Barking asked who was going to pay for all the Ofcom enforcement. The taxpayer will pay for the first two years while we get ready—£88 million over two years—but after that Ofcom will levy fees on these social media firms, so they will pay for regulating their activities. I have already replied to the point she rightly raised about smaller but very harmful platforms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) has been campaigning tirelessly on the question of combating racism. This Bill will deliver what he is asking for.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) asked about Zach’s law. Let me take this opportunity to confirm explicitly that clause 150—the harmful communication clause, for where a communication is intended to cause psychological distress—will cover epilepsy trolling. What happened to Zach will be prevented by this Bill. In addition, the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission are looking at whether we can also have a standalone provision, but let me assure them that clause 150 will protect Zach.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon asked a number of questions about definitions. Companies can move between category 1 and category 2, and different parts of a large conglomerate can be regulated differently depending on their activities. Let me make one point very clear—the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) also raised this point. When it comes to the provisions on “legal but harmful”, neither the Government nor Parliament are saying that those things have to be taken down. We are not censoring in that sense. We are not compelling social media firms to remove content. All we are saying is that they must do a risk assessment, have transparent terms and conditions, and apply those terms and conditions consistently. We are not compelling, we are not censoring; we are just asking for transparency and accountability, which is sorely missing at the moment. No longer will those in Silicon Valley be able to behave in an arbitrary, censorious way, as they do at the moment—something that Members of this House have suffered from, but from which they will no longer suffer once this Bill passes.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West, who I see is not here, asked a number of questions, one of which was about—[Interruption.] He is here; I do apologise. He has moved—I see he has popped up at the back of the Chamber. He asked about codes of practice not being mandatory. That is because the safety duties are mandatory. The codes of practice simply illustrate ways in which those duties can be met. Social media firms can meet them in other ways, but if they fail to meet those duties, Ofcom will enforce. There is no loophole here.
When it comes to the ombudsman, we are creating an internal right of appeal for the first time, so that people can appeal to the social media firms themselves. There will have to be a proper right of appeal, and if there is not, they will be enforced against. We do not think it appropriate for Ofcom to consider every individual complaint, because it will simply be overwhelmed, by probably tens of thousands of complaints, but Ofcom will be able to enforce where there are systemic failures. We feel that is the right approach.
I say to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Borders will meet him about the terrible Keyham shooting.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) raised a question about online fraud in the context of search. That is addressed by clause 35, but we do intend to make drafting improvements to the Bill, and I am happy to work with her on those drafting improvements.
I have been speaking as quickly as I can, which is quite fast, but I think time has got away from me. This Bill is groundbreaking. It will protect our citizens, it will protect our children—[Hon. Members: “Sit down!”]—and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister just made it. I have rarely seen a Minister come so close to talking out his own Bill.

Online Safety Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Online Safety Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 30 June 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Online Safety Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Online Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Online Safety Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Online Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees under the Act, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That at this day’s sitting, Standing Order 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Nadine Dorries relating to Online Safety Bill: Carry-over.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Really, people just ought to have more courtesy than to get up and, when there is still business going on in this House, to behave as if it is not sitting because it is after 10 o’clock. We really have to observe courtesy at all times in here.

Online Safety Bill (Carry-Over)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Online Safety Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

UK City of Culture: Southampton’s Bid

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Caroline Nokes: I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for having granted this debate on Southampton’s bid to be city of culture 2025.
Before I make that pitch, I want to dwell for a while on what culture is to all of us, and the reality is that it will be different for different people. It will vary according to place and time, and it will of course vary according to age. What is culture to one person may well not be to another, and the bid for Southampton has made sure to ask people to consult widely, particularly with the region’s young people, to find out what culture means to them.
Culture can be many things—art, music, sport, food, history, place, dance, architecture, invention—but above all that, to me and to Southampton, it is community. It is the people who have come here, and created, built, established and enjoyed what it is that we have that brings us together. This bid has really brought us all together—councils of different political hues, MPs representing both Labour and Conservative, and councillors working hand in hand—to make it through to the final four and to promote all we have to offer.
To make the pitch is easy, and it is made easier still by the broadening of the search to find the UK’s city of culture to include wider regions. Southampton lacks nothing, but once we have included the wider Solent region, we have absolutely everything.

Paul Holmes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct to outline how important this bid is to the community not only in Southampton, but in the wider Solent region. In Eastleigh, we are home to Hampshire Cricket with the Ageas Bowl, and there are various heritage sites in the wider Solent region. Does she agree with me that it is really important, particularly given what she mentions about councils of all political persuasions coming forward, that this bid really does have cross-party support? It is supported by a huge array of people around the region, and that is why Southampton and the wider region should be the city of culture in 2025.

Caroline Nokes: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely bang-on and I will mention some of the fantastic attributes Eastleigh is bringing to the wider bid. I am heartened by the strength of the partnerships supporting the bid, as my hon. Friend emphasises.

Maria Miller: On that, may I point out that all parts of Hampshire would be interested in partnering with the city of Southampton in its bid to be city of culture? My own constituency of Basingstoke brings the likes of the Anvil theatre, one of the top 10 concert halls in Europe, as well as the Haymarket and the Proteus theatre. There is a wealth of support there for this bid, and that can also help with the legacy which is so important and I know my right hon. Friend puts great store by.

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the legacy and I was going to move on to that. From Bournemouth and Poole in the west of the region to Portsmouth in the east—and my right hon. Friend has brought in Basingstoke at the north of the region—many areas are seeking to support and partner with the city in making this bid.

Alan Whitehead: rose—

Caroline Nokes: I am tempted to give way to my neighbour in Southampton, Test, who appears to wish to intervene.

Alan Whitehead: I thank the hon. Member for generously giving way again. I rise both to demonstrate the all-party support for this bid and because I want to ask my right hon. Friend—as the right hon. Lady is for this purpose—whether she considers the proud multicultural heritage of Southampton since the 12th century of welcoming different cultures and communities into the city and learning from them and establishing them in the process to be an integral and central part of the city’s bid for city of culture 2025 and why it should win that coveted title?

Caroline Nokes: I thank my constituency neighbour, and on this occasion hon. Friend, for making that important point and wonder whether he has predicted one of the next chunks of my contribution.
As I have said, we are all celebrating this bid. It is being celebrated by neighbouring authorities and by organisations, business and community groups alike, and an impressive list of ambassadors. It is being supported by the schools, colleges and universities across the region, by the National Oceanography Centre, by our collective museums, art galleries and theatres—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) referenced—by the stadiums, parks and sports centres and above all by the people.
Instinctively, when we think of Southampton we think of the Solent and the water, but our bid is not just about boat shows and regattas, brilliant though they are; it is also about the ripple effect of our culture, the tide of Solent water that rises not just once, but twice a day, and carries people with it. There is a tendency to think of people using that tide to leave the city. After all we have a park and a theatre named after the Mayflower, Southampton was where the Titanic set sail on her ill-fated maiden voyage, and it is the cruise capital of the UK, but that tide has, as my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, also historically brought people to the city. As  a result, it has a rich and varied culture, with over 150 languages spoken, with places of worship of every religion we can think of, and an annual peace walk that brings all faiths together. It is a city that celebrates and enjoys difference and diversity while also working hard to bring people together, and of course that is what being the city of culture is all about and can accentuate, widening the reach of that strong maritime history, and enabling the wider region to participate in the legacy this bid seeks to bring.

Caroline Dinenage: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this mission of addressing need and creating opportunity is important for both Southampton and the wider region and the ripple effect she spoke about? My Gosport constituency has some  pockets of real need and deprivation but also a jewel of heritage, particularly naval heritage, which is so important to celebrate. There is so much potential through this bid to benefit the wider area in both levelling up and also celebrating the things we treasure. That is why I agree that this is an important bid for us to win.

Caroline Nokes: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. She is right. We do have a rich maritime history. The trading character of Southampton but also the Royal Navy heritage of Portsmouth and Gosport are key to this.
As I was saying, when it comes to faith, it is not just about the mosques, the gurdwaras, the Christian churches, the Friends meeting house, the synagogue and the Vedic temple; there are also the shrines to the sporting prowess that the region has in abundance. In this bid we celebrate many religions—that of sport, of music, of food. St Mary’s is a fabulous church, where the annual Titanic memorial service is held, but it is also where we worship idols  like Ted Bates, Lawrie McMenemy and the current bid ambassador James Ward-Prowse. In 2019, another bid ambassador, Southampton’s own Craig David, played there—a concert, I hasten to add, not on the pitch. And we do music in the city, from youth orchestras to festivals, at concerts on the common, and in places like the Engine Rooms and the Joiners. And we most certainly do food. The bid chairman is Masterchef winner Shelina Permalloo, who runs her Mauritian street kitchen in Bedford place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor had his first job at Kuti’s famous brasserie, and we have food from literally everywhere. I always say that food brings communities together, and whether it is the big iftar at the Medina mosque or the langar at the gurdwara in Peterborough road, you can point to examples across our city where we come together to celebrate and to eat.
There are other, different types of temple, across the region—those that celebrate sport like the Ageas bowl, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) has already referenced, the home of Hampshire cricket, in neighbouring Eastleigh—and my thanks to that borough for supporting the bid. The village of Hambledon, known as the cradle of cricket, is in the Winchester City Council area, which is also backing this bid. Even in the Solent itself we play cricket. Who would have thought that it was a water sport, but the annual Bramble Bank cricket match happens in the Solent, in late August or early September, dependent upon the tides I have already referred to, literally half way between Southampton and Cowes—which brings me on to some of the more interesting partner relationships, because even Portsmouth is backing this bid. Those who understand the region know there is a challenging rivalry between the two cities, but there is wide recognition that what benefits one will also benefit the other, in terms of visitors, volunteering hours, participation and even levelling up.
Levelling up is not something that is geographically limited to the north. There are challenges in the south as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said. Sometimes Southampton has been described as a northern city in the south, but of course we do have our own character. You only have to look at what city of culture has achieved for Liverpool and for Hull, bringing places together, bringing a focus for activities and an ongoing legacy. That is one of the  crucial parts of the city of culture. I would like to pay tribute to the Southampton bid team, who have made legacy their focus, recognising the year of culture would be 2025, but securing ongoing commitments from businesses and organisations which stretch far beyond that. They have looked at the challenges we face, contemplated the difficulties that the pandemic has brought, and recognised that mental health, particularly for men, has been a big issue, and they have developed a programme of events to include everyone, regardless of age, gender, ability, ethnicity and faith. They have celebrated our rivers—the Itchen and the Test, which combine in the Solent. We have a rich maritime history, which you might expect to be an enormous theme.
But this is also a region which has much to celebrate in the sky. The Spitfire was designed and built here, in Woolston, but tested over the hills of King’s Somborne, much further north in my constituency, and it protected us during the second world war. The first ever website was developed by Tim Berners-Lee, a professor at Southampton University, and while one may not be able to see and hear the world wide web in the same way one could the Spitfire, it has come to dominate our lives, as the debate immediately prior to this one ably demonstrated. And this is a bid earthed in our land, with the open parks and the adjacent New Forest, and the South Downs national parks. It is also a bid for the future, celebrating technology and the changes that that brings. So I say to the Minister, and to all those assessing this bid, that we know that we have a great deal to offer, so let us make it so.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this debate. She is a great advocate for Southampton—indeed, the whole area—and is rightly enthusiastic about it having been shortlisted recently in an intensely fierce competition; a record number of places applied this year. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed this evening.
The UK city of culture is a key part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s broader offer to level up across the UK. That reflects the fact that culture is a catalyst for investment in places, and drives economic growth and regeneration. Delivered by DCMS in collaboration with the devolved Administrations, the quadrennial competition invites places across the UK to set out their vision for culture-led regeneration. The city of culture is also about highlighting the role that culture plays in the heart of our communities, with the aim of promoting social cohesion, instilling pride and making places even more attractive to visit, live in and work in.
It is worth reflecting briefly on the many benefits that previous winners of the title have enjoyed. More than £150 million of public and private sector investment was invested in the 2013 winner, Derry/Londonderry; and the 2017 winner, Hull, saw 5.3 million people visiting more than 2,800 events. Coventry, despite huge challenges posed by the pandemic, has developed an extraordinary programme of events that have put culture at the heart of social and economic recovery. Some £500 million has been invested in city-wide regeneration since it was confirmed as the UK city of culture. The  city has seen more than £172 million invested in the likes of music concerts, public art displays, the new Telegraph hotel, a new children’s play area in the city centre, and improvements to public transport.
Given those benefits, it is no surprise that finalists in the 2025 competition were whittled down from a record 20 initial UK-wide applications. Southampton, along with three other locations—Bradford, Durham and Wrexham—was approved by the Secretary of State to be shortlisted for the 2025 competition. This was based on advice given to the Government by the independent expert advisory panel. The panel, which is chaired by Sir Phil Redmond, will assess the finalists against criteria such as placemaking, levelling up, UK and international collaboration, opening up access to culture, and creating the lasting legacy that my right hon. Friend spoke about. The panel will make its final recommendation following visits to the four shortlisted places and a final presentation next month. The winner will be announced in Coventry in late May.
As my right hon. Friend eloquently set out, Southampton is a young and very diverse maritime city. As she said, it is brimming with culture and has a huge amount to offer local people and visitors. There is a world-class music scene, and it has many festivals, including the literally mouth-watering food festivals she mentioned. There is also a wide choice of theatres, galleries and museums. The city is home to two universities, which welcome students from all over the world. Southampton has world-leading research into cancer, science and maritime engineering, and minds that famously connected the world through the invention of the world wide web, which she mentioned. From ancient waterways and five centuries of shipbuilding to the making of the Spitfire and the south of England’s Science Park innovation hub, Southampton is a city of enterprise. Alongside that, the area has seen significant investment in arts and culture. Arts Council England national portfolio organisations in the local authority of Southampton have received nearly £10 million between 2018 and 2022.
Southampton’s UK city of culture bid is being  delivered by Southampton 2025 Trust, a partnership including Southampton City Council, the University of Southampton, Solent University and GO! Southampton. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise their dedication and give thanks for all their hard work so far. The bid team are using the process as an opportunity to further enhance perceptions of Southampton and showcase the city to the rest of the UK and the world. They are aiming to celebrate diversity, attract more visitors to the city, encourage enterprise to support home-grown businesses and cultural organisations, and boost opportunities for their young people.
For the first time, the eight longlisted places from across the UK received a £40,000 grant to support their application ahead of the shortlisting stage. The intention was to ensure a fairer competition and aid places in developing deliverable plans. However, this is not just about who wins the competition; there are clear benefits to all places that take part. The consultation process that forms part of the bidding engages local communities and organisations, and that can result in enduring partnerships. Scalable plans can also be developed, and can then still be carried out to some extent if the city does not win.
For example, Hull was unsuccessful in winning the 2013 title, but came back to win the 2017 title. Sunderland, which bid for the 2021 title, created the momentum to form a new arts trust, Sunderland Culture; achieved enhanced Arts Council England funding; and mobilised a lasting team of community volunteers. Paisley, which also bid for the 2021 title, has since raised funds for its museum and hosted a range of major events, including UNBOXED’s About Us, which launched last month. Norwich, which bid for the 2013 title, went on to be the UNESCO city of literature.
However, I do not want to be pessimistic. Obviously, there are huge benefits for those that do not win, but there are also huge benefits for those that do. DCMS  wants all bidders to take advantage of the bidding process, and we are committed to working with those who do not win to continue to develop partnerships, advance culture-led change and strengthen cultural strategies, and signpost upcoming opportunities and funding.
I commend Southampton’s commitment to winning the UK city of culture competition 2025. There is clearly a very strong case, which has been laid out by hon. Members from across the House this evening. Of course, I wish all shortlisted bidders good luck in the final stages of the competition.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.